Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

DOT/FRA/RDV-00/02

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-00-04

Maglev Deployment Program

Volume I

April 2001

Office of Railroad Development

Washington, D.C. 20590

Prepared By:

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

U.S.Department 

of Transportation

Federal Railroad

Administration
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

April 2001

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

December 1999 – January 2001

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Maglev Deployment Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I

6. AUTHOR(S): Paul Bousquet2, Aviva Brecher2, Kim Brian2, Michael Coltman2, Robert Dorer2, 

Julie Ebbighausen2, William Fashouer1, Gregg Fleming2, Jeffrey Gordon2, Glenn Goulet2, 

Arnold Kupferman1, Adrian Hellman2, Jose Mantilla 2, Stephanie Markos2, Ronald Mauri2, Chris 

Roof2, Roger Wayson2, David Valenstein1, Paul Valihura2.

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR194/R1130

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

US Department of Transportation

Research and Special Programs Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-00-04

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

US Department of Transportation

Office of Railroad Development

Federal Railroad Administration

1120 Vermont Ave. (M/S 20)

Washington, D.C. 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/RDV-00/02

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1

Federal Railroad Administration;2Volpe Center

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Maglev Deployment Program, as authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21), 

encourages the development and construction of an operating transportation system employing magnetic levitation. Magnetic 

levitation (Maglev) is an advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a 

specially designed guideway with cruising speeds of up to 483 km/h (300 mph). In order to comply with the TEA 21 legislation, the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is conducting a competition among seven state participants for the purpose of 

demonstrating the use of Maglev. To satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, FRA with the assistance 

of the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center has prepared and distributed a Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (DPEIS). In response to the public and agency comment on the DPEIS, FRA has refined the DPEIS that is now 

considered the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS is comprised of two volumes. Volume I is the 

DPEIS as revised by FRA in light of agency and public comment. Volume II contains the agency and public comments and FRA’s 

specific responses to those comments.

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

424

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Maglev, environment, high-speed ground 

transportation. 

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unlimited

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
FinalProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpactStatement

Maglev Deployment Program

January 2001

Office of Railroad Development

Washington, D.C. 20590

Prepared By:

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Federal Railroad

Administration

Date

For additional information concerning this document contact:

David alentein or Paul Valihura

ice of Raiload D elopment Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

ederal Raiload Adminitrtion Research and Special Programs Administration

1120 mont e.(Mail Stop 20) 55 Broadway, Kendall Square

ashington, .C.20590 Cambridge, MA 02142-1093

el.(202) 493-6383 Tel. (617) 494-2918

This Final Pogramm tic Evionmental Impact St tement (PEIS) has been prepared in two volumes to stisfy the

requirements of the National Evionmental oli y Act (NEA) or the Magl v Depl yment Pogram. The Pogram

encourages the d elopment and con uction of a public transpo tion sytem using magnetic lvitation,

capable of safe speeds in excess of 386 kilometers/hour (240 miles/hour). Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an

advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a specially

designed guideway. Through a nation-wide competition, FRA selected seven states or state designated authorities,

om a pool of el en,to receie grants or pre-con uction planning. Those s en state projects are considered the

Action Alte ties in this PEIS. This document presents the pupose and need, alternatives, a description of the

fected natural and human evionment and an assessment of the consequenceswith potential mitigation for each

of the sub-alte ties as ell as or the No-Action Alte tie.

S. Mark Lindsey

Acting Deputy Adminitrator

Federal Railroad Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................iii

List of Figures............................................................................................................x

List of Tables..............................................................................................................xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................ES-1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION.........1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................1-1

1.2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1-2

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION.........................................1-3

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT......................................................................1-4

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................2-1

2.1 HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND......2-1

2.2 MAGLEV ALTERNATIVES..................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Initial Maglev Alternatives.................................................................2-5

2.2.2 Initial Maglev Alternative Screening.................................................2-5

2.3 ALTERNATIVE MAGLEV TECHNOLOGIES....................................2-5

2.3.1 Transrapid International Maglev System...........................................2-6

2.3.2 Maglev 2000 System..........................................................................2-10

2.4 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS............2-17

2.4.1 California............................................................................................2-18

2.4.2 Florida................................................................................................2-20

2.4.3 Georgia...............................................................................................2-22

2.4.4 Louisiana............................................................................................2-25

2.4.5 Maryland................................ 2-27

2.4.6 Nevada................................................................................................2-30

2.4.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................2-3

2.5 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE...............................................................2-34

2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE..............................................................2-35

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................3-1

3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................3-1

3.1.1 Appalachian Region...........................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plains...........................................................3-2

3.1.3 Basin and Range Region....................................................................3-3

3.1.4 Coast Ranges......................................................................................3-3

3.2 CLIMATE................................................................................................3-3

3.3 NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS AND WETLANDS...................................3-5

3.3.1 California............................................................................................3-7

3.3.2 Florida................................................................................................3-8
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

iv

3.3.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-9

3.3.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-11

3.3.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-12

3.3.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-13

3.3.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-13

3.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES......................................................................3-15

3.5 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................3-17

3.5.1 California..................................................................................................3-17

3.5.2 Florida ......................................................................................................3-18

3.5.3 Georgia.....................................................................................................3-18

3.5.4 Louisiana ..................................................................................................3-18

3.5.5 Maryland ..................................................................................................3-19

3.5.6 Nevada......................................................................................................3-19

3.5.7 Pennsylvania.............................................................................................3-19

3.6 FLOOD HAZARD...................................................................................3-20

3.7 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT......................................................3-20

3.8 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................3-21

3.8.1 California............................................................................................3-23

3.8.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-24

3.8.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-24

3.8.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-24

3.8.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-24

3.8.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-25

3.8.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-25

3.9 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE....................................................3-25

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND

ELDERLY AND DISABLED.................................................................3-26

3.10.1 Socioeconomic ...................................................................................3-26

3.10.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................3-27

3.10.3 Elderly and Disabled..........................................................................3-29

3.11 LAND USE, FARMLAND AND 4(f) RESOURCES.............................3-30

3.11.1 California............................................................................................3-31

3.11.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-31

3.11.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-32

3.11.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-33

3.11.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-34

3.11.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-35

3.11.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-35

3.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES...........................................3-36

3.12.1 California............................................................................................3-37

3.12.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-37

3.12.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-37

3.12.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-38

3.12.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-38

3.12.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-38

3.12.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-38
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

v

3.13 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................3-38

3.13.1 Historic and Architectural Resources.................................................3-41

3.13.2 Archaeological Resources..................................................................3-42

3.13.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................3-42

3.13.4 California............................................................................................3-42

3.13.5 Florida ................................................................................................3-42

3.13.6 Georgia...............................................................................................3-42

3.13.7 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-43

3.13.8 Maryland ............................................................................................3-43

3.13.9 Nevada................................................................................................3-43

3.13.10 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-43

3.14 TRANSPORTATION..............................................................................3-44

3.14.1 California............................................................................................3-44

3.14.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-46

3.14.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-47

3.14.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-48

3.14.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-50

3.14.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-52

3.14.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-53

3.15 ENERGY..................................................................................................3-56

3.15.1 California............................................................................................3-56

3.15.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-57

3.15.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-57

3.15.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-58

3.15.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-58

3.15.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-59

3.15.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-60

3.16 PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH.........................................................3-60

3.16.1 Systems Safety...................................................................................3-61

3.16.2 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Radiation (EMR) Impacts..........3-61

3.17 NOISE AND VIBRATION.....................................................................3-66

3.17.1 California............................................................................................3-66

3.17.2 Florida ................................................................................................3-66

3.17.3 Georgia...............................................................................................3-67

3.17.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................3-67

3.17.5 Maryland ............................................................................................3-67

3.17.6 Nevada................................................................................................3-68

3.17.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................3-68

3.18 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIOFREQUENCY

RADIATION (EMR) ...............................................................................3-68
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

vi

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND

MITIGATION MITIGATION.................................................................4-1

4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................4-1

4.1.1 Topography........................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Geology..............................................................................................4-2

4.1.3 Soils....................................................................................................4-3

4.1.4 Summary............................................................................................4-3

4.1.5 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-3

4.2 CLIMATE................................................................................................4-4

4.2.1 California............................................................................................4-5

4.2.2 Florida................................................................................................4-6

4.2.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-6

4.2.4 Louisiana............................................................................................4-7

4.2.5 Maryland............................................................................................4-7

4.2.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-8

4.2.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-8

4.2.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-9

4.2.9 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-9

4.3 NATURAL ECOSYSTEM AND WETLANDS.....................................4-9

4.3.1 ELF and EMF Effects on Wildlife.....................................................4-10

4.3.2 California............................................................................................4-10

4.3.3 Florida................................................................................................4-11

4.3.4 Georgia...............................................................................................4-12

4.3.5 Louisian............................................................................................4-13

4.3.6 Maryland................................ 4-15

4.3.7 Nevada................................................................................................4-16

4.3.8 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-17

4.3.9 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-18

4.3.10 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-20

4.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES......................................................................4-20

4.4.1 California............................................................................................4-21

4.4.2 Florida................................................................................................4-21

4.4.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-22

4.4.4 Louisiana............................................................................................4-22

4.4.5 Maryland................................ 4-22

4.4.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-23

4.4.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-24

4.4.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-24

4.4.9 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-24

4.5 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................4-25

4.5.1 No-Action Alternativ ........................................................................4-25

4.6 FLOOD HAZAR ...................................................................................4-26

4.6.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-27

4.7 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT......................................................4-27

4.8 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................4-27
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

vii

4.8.1 California............................................................................................4-30

4.8.2 Florida ................................................................................................4-31

4.8.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-31

4.8.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................4-33

4.8.5 Maryland ............................................................................................4-35

4.8.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-35

4.8.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-37

4.8.8 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-37

4.9 SOLID WASTE.......................................................................................4-37

4.9.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-38

4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND

ELDERLY AND DISABLED.................................................................4-38

4.10.1 Socioeconomic ...................................................................................4-39

4.10.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................4-41

4.10.3 Elderly and Disabled..........................................................................4-46

4.10.4 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-46

4.11 LAND USE, FARMLAND AND 4(f) RESOURCES.............................4-47

4.11.1 California............................................................................................4-48

4.11.2 Florida ................................................................................................4-49

4.11.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-50

4.11.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................4-51

4.11.5 Maryland ............................................................................................4-52

4.11.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-53

4.11.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-54

4.11.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-54

4.11.9 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-55

4.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES...........................................4-56

4.12.1 California............................................................................................4-58

4.12.2 Florida ................................................................................................4-58

4.12.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-59

4.12.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................4-59

4.12.5 Maryland ............................................................................................4-59

4.12.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-59

4.12.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-60

4.12.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-60

4.12.9 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-61

4.13 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................4-61

4.13.1 California............................................................................................4-61

4.13.2 Florida ................................................................................................4-62

4.13.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-62

4.13.4 Louisiana ............................................................................................4-62

4.13.5 Maryland ............................................................................................4-63

4.13.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-63

4.13.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-63

4.13.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-63
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

viii

4.13.9 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-65

4.14 TRANSPORTATION..............................................................................4-65

4.14.1 California............................................................................................4-67

4.14.2 Florida................................................................................................4-67

4.14.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-68

4.14.4 Louisiana............................................................................................4-69

4.14.5 Maryland................................ 4-70

4.14.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-70

4.14.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-72

4.14.8 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-73

4.15 ENERGY..................................................................................................4-73

4.15.1 California............................................................................................4-74

4.15.2 Florida................................................................................................4-76

4.15.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-76

4.15.4 Louisiana............................................................................................4-77

4.15.5 Maryland................................ 4-78

4.15.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-79

4.15.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-80

4.15.8 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-81

4.16 PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH.........................................................4-81

4.16.1 Systems Safety Features.....................................................................4-82

4.16.2 EMF/EMR Consequences and Mitigation: Maglev EMF

Safety Compliance.............................................................................4-88

4.16.3 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-94

4.16.4 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-95

4.17 NOISE & VIBRATION...........................................................................4-95

4.17.1 California............................................................................................4-100

4.17.2 Florida................................................................................................4-101

4.17.3 Georgia...............................................................................................4-102

4.17.4 Louisiana............................................................................................4-103

4.17.5 Maryland................................ 4-103

4.17.6 Nevada................................................................................................4-104

4.17.7 Pennsylvania.......................................................................................4-105

4.17.8 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-105

4.17.9 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-106

4.18 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION (EMR)4-107

4.18.1 Mitigation...........................................................................................4-109

4.18.2 No-Action Alternative........................................................................4-110

4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS.................................................................4-110

4.20 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE USE OF RESOURCES........4-114

4.21 LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY......................4-114

CHAPTER 5 LIST OF PREPARERS CHAPTER 5 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................5-1
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ix

APPENDICES APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MAGLEV REPRESENTATIVES FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION & COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENTS..........................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B TEA-21.........................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C THE IMPACTS OF THE TRANSRAPID MAGNETIC

 LEVIATION TRAIN ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE

ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................C-1

APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................D-1

APPENDIX E ACRONYMS, SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS.....................E-1

APPENDIX F NOTICE OF INTENT..................................................................F-1

APPENDIX G LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE FPEIS.....................................G-1

APPENDIX H ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY....................................................H-1

APPENDIX I FLORA AND FAUNA................................................................I-1

APPENDIX J REFERENCES.............................................................................J-1

APPENDIX K SCOPING LETTERS...................................................................K-1

APPENDIX L METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS.......................L-1

APPENDIX M U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SLATER

SELECTS TWO HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECTS............M-1
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

List of Figures

Figure 2.3-1 Transrapid Maglev Components.....................................................2-7

Figure 2.3-2 Transrapid Support and Guidance Systems....................................2-7

Figure 2.3-3 Transrapid Propulsion.....................................................................2-8

Figure 2.3-4 Transrapid Guideway......................................................................2-9

Figure 2.3-5 Transrapid Interior Plan..................................................................2-10

Figure 2.3-6 M-2000 System...............................................................................2-11

Figure 2.3-7 M-2000 Null Flux Guideway..........................................................2-12

Figure 2.3-8 M-2000 Propulsion System.............................................................2-13

Figure 2.3-9 M-2000 Guideway Loops................................................................2-14

Figure 2.3-10 M-2000 Passenger Vehicle..............................................................2-15

Figure 2.3-11 M-2000 Freight Vehicle..................................................................2-16

Figure 2.4-1 California Alternative – Locus Map................................................2-19

Figure 2.4-2 California Alternative – Proposed Routes.......................................2-20

Figure 2.4-3 Florida Alternative – Locus Map....................................................2-21

Figure 2.4-4 Florida Alternative – Proposed Routes...........................................2-22

Figure 2.4-5 Georgia Alternative – Locus Map...................................................2-23

Figure 2.4-6 Georgia Alternative – Proposed Routes..........................................2-24

Figure 2.4-7 Louisiana Alternative – Locus Map................................................2-26

Figure 2.4-8 Louisiana Alternative – Proposed Routes.......................................2-27

Figure 2.4-9 Maryland Alternative – Locus Map................................................2-28

Figure 2.4-10 Maryland Alternative – Proposed Routes.......................................2-29

Figure 2.4-11 Nevada Alternative – Locus Map....................................................2-31

Figure 2.4-12 Nevada Alternative – Proposed Routes...........................................2-32

Figure 2.4-13 Pennsylvania Alternative – Locus Map..........................................2-33

Figure 2.4-14 Pennsylvania Alternative – Proposed Routes..................................2-34

Figure 4.16-1 Average Magnetic Field Levels (MFLs) in 13

Transportation Systems...................................................................4-91

Figure 4.16-2 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Magnetic Fields (EMF)............4-92

Figure 4.16-3 Maglev EMF Levels Relative to Common EMF Sources

and Applicable Safety Standards and Guidelines...........................4-93

Figure 4.17-1 FRA Impact Criteria for High-Speed Rail Projects........................4-97

Figure 4.17-2 Speed/Distance Startle Effect Relationship.....................................4-98

Figure H-1 A-Weighted Sound Levels..............................................................H-2

Figure H-2 Graphical Representation of LAE.....................................................H-4
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

xi

List of Tables List of Tables

Table ES-1(a) Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation...............................ES-10

Table ES-1(b) Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation, Continued.............ES-11

Table ES-1(c) .............ES-12

Table 3.2-1 Typical Climate for Proposed Maglev System Locations...............3-4

Table 3.4-1 Potential Threatened or Endangered Species Within the

Alternative.......................................................................................3-16

Table 3.7-1 Coastal Zone District Jurisdiction...................................................3-21

Table 3.8-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................3-22

Table 3.10-1 Population........................................................................................3-27

Table 3.10-2 Protected Populations......................................................................3-28

Table 3.10-3 Racial Composition of the Affected Population.............................3-29

Table 3.13- Summary of Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Resources...3-39

Table 3.16-1 Applicable Static Magnetic Field and 60 Hz EMF Standards........3-62

Table 3.16-2 WHO/ ICNIRP (1998) Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to

Power Frequency and Harmonics Electric and Magnetic Fields

(ELF/EMF)......................................................................................3-62

Table 3.16-3 Occupational Exposure Limits Guidelines for Sub-Radio

Frequency (SRF, 30 kHz and below) Magnetic and Electric

Fields-ACGIH 1999 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)

Based on IEEE C95.1-1999............................................................3-62

Table 3.16-4 FCC Limits (Maximum Permissible Public Exposure, MPE)

 for Radio Frequency Radiation, 300 kHz-100 GHz.......................3-63

Table 3.18-1 Potential Electromagnetic Radiation Sources.................................3-70

Table 3.18-2 Standards Relevant to Potential Electromagnetic

Interference (EMI) and Compatibility (EMC)................................3-71

Table 4.6-1 Floodplain Crossing Lengths..........................................................4-26

Table 4.7- Alternative Consistency with State CMPs......................................4-27

Table 4.8-1 California Net Changes in Emissions..............................................4-30

Table 4.8-2 Florida Motor Vehicle-Related Air Emissions in Metric

Tons/Tons Per Year.........................................................................4-31

Table 4.8-3 Georgia Net Changes in Emissions Based on Maglev Project........4-32

Table 4.8-4 Louisiana Change in Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions

 in Year 2020...................................................................................4-34

Table 4.8- Maryland Summary of Estimated Annual Reductions in VOCs,

CO and NOx (2020)........................................................................4-35

Table 4.8-6 Net Changes in Emissions Resulting from the Proposed

Maglev Project................................................................................4-36

Table 4-8.7 Southwestern Pennsylvania Change in Relevant Regional

Criteria Pollutant/Precursor Emissions ..........................................4-37

Table 4.10- Summary of Ranges of Potential Residence and Business

Takings............................................................................................4-42

Table 4.10-2 Households Below Poverty Level...................................................4-43
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

xii

Table 4.16-1 Comparison of EMF in TR07 Time-Varying Fields and

Other Appliances.............................................................................4-93

Table 4.16-2 Comparison of Average ELF/EMF Fields for Various Transportation

Systems............................................................................................4-94

Table 4.17-1 Maglev Dominant Noise Sources....................................................4-96

Table 4.17-2 FRA Land Use Categories...............................................................4-97

Table 4.17-3 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria...................................................4-99

Table 4.17-4 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria..........................................4-99

Table 4.17-5 Summary of Vibration Criteria for Special Buildings....................4-100

Table 4.17-6 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - California ......................4-101

Table 4.17-7 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Florida ...........................4-102

Table 4.17-8 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Georgia..........................4-102

Table 4.17-9 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Louisiana .......................4-103

Table 4.17-10 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Maryland .......................4-104

Table 4.17-11 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Nevada ..........................4-104

Table 4.17-12 Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites – Pennsylvania.................4-105

Table 4.17-13 Summary of Noise Mitigation Measures........................................4-106

Table I-1 Maglev Alternatives Flora and Fauna Species (common names)...I-1
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Maglev Deployment Program (the Program), as authorized by Congress in the

Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21), encourages the development and

construction of an operating transportation system employing magnetic levitation,

capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 386 kilometer/hour (km/h) (240

miles/hour (mph)). Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an advanced transportation

technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a specially

designed guideway. Utilizing state-of-the-art electric power and control systems, this

configuration eliminates contact between vehicle and guideway, and permits cruising

speeds of up to 483 km/h (300 mph), or almost two times the speed of conventional highspeed rail passenger service.

In order to comply with the TEA 21 legislation (see Appendix B), the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) is conducting a competition to select a project for the purpose of

demonstrating the use of Maglev to the American public. In mid-1999, the Secretary of

Transportation selected seven states or state-designated authorities from a pool of eleven

applicants to receive grants for pre-construction planning of their Maglev Alternatives.

The seven sponsoring participants are located in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,

Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

To satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FRA, as

lead agency, has determined that the Program constitutes a major Federal action with the

potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, FRA prepared

and distributed a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) that

described the Program and the environmental impacts associated with its possible

implementation. The DPEIS also served to encourage public involvement and to address

agency and public concerns. FRA required each of the seven participants to prepare an

environmental assessment and these environmental studies formed the baseline data in

the FRA’s preparation of the DPEIS. In response to the public and agency comment on

the DPEIS, FRA has refined the DPEIS that is now considered the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS is comprised of two volumes.

Volume I is the DPEIS as revised by FRA in light of agency and public comment.

Volume II contains the agency and public comments and FRA’s specific responses to

those comments. FRA very much appreciates the time and effort and the comments and

suggestions that were provided by various federal, state and local agencies and the

general public.

As a programmatic environmental impact statement, the PEIS analyzes the environmental

and related impacts associated with the Maglev Deployment at a level of detail

commensurate with the program level decisions about the program that are being made at

this stage. After completing this PEIS, FRA will administer a selection process that

could lead to the selection of one project to receive authorized construction funding.

FRA will prepare a project-specific environmental impact statement for any Maglev
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 2

Alternative proposed for construction with Federal funding provided through the FRA.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

The FRA’s mission is to promote railroad transportation that meets both current and

future needs of the Nation. The Program is intended to demonstrate Maglev technology

as a next generation of America’s high-speed ground transportation by identifying a

viable Maglev project in the U.S., and assisting a public/private partnership formed to

plan, finance, construct, and operate the project.

The deployment of Maglev systems would partially address several of the main problems

associated with inter- and intra-regional transportation in the U.S. Maglev would serve

as an alternative transportation system, alleviating the congestion in airway and

automotive corridors that results from increasing travel demand, and would extend the

usefulness of existing airport and highway infrastructure.

Associated benefits could include:

§ Regional economic development

§ Joint development at stations

§ Support of comprehensive land use planning

§ Improved air quality

§ Reduced consumption of non-renewable resources

§ Increased productivity of business travelers

The high performance of Maglev transportation would provide air-competitive trip times

at longer trip distances than other high-speed ground transportation (HSGT) alternatives.

In addition, Maglev technology would potentially maximize the utilization of airports’

potential, by providing inter-modal connections between airports and business districts,

thereby supporting airports as centers for inter-modal transfer and travel. By providing a

high-speed link connecting two or more airports serving a single region, additional air

travel demand can be shifted to under-used airports with additional capacity instead of

requiring the expansion of existing airports.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The success of the Maglev Deployment Program hinges on involving the affected public

and incorporating their input. Each of the seven participants has initiated public

involvement programs, and the scope of their programs are described in each

participant’s environmental assessment.

FRA published a Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS on December 29, 1999. The FRA

published a Maglev Deployment Program webpage on the agency’s internet site

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/maglev.htm). This PEIS is available on an accompanying

webpage (http://www.fra.dot.gov/s/env/MagPEIS).

The DPEIS was approved by the Federal Railroad Admnistration on June 29,2000 and

made available at (http://www.fra.dot.gov/s/env/MagPEIS.htm). The DPEIS was also

sent to major stakeholders, identified by the states, for review and comment. In addition,

copies have been sent to libraries within the each of the seven alternatives.
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

(6

$Q RIILFLDO FRPPHQW SHULRG FRPPHQFHG DIWHU GLVWULEXWLRQ RI WKH '3(,6 DQG FORVHG

6HSWHPEHU   ,QWHUHVWHG SDUWLHVZHUHLQYLWHGWR VXEPLWFRPPHQWV RQWKH'3(,6

DQG FRXOG VHQG WKHP WR WKH )HGHUDO 'RFNHW 0DQDJHPHQW 6\VWHP RU WR WKH )5$ VHH

9ROXPH,,RIWKLV)(,6

$IWHUUHOHDVHRIWKH'3(,6SXEOLFLQIRUPDWLRQPHHWLQJVZHUHKHOGLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIHDFK

RIWKHVHYHQ0DJOHY$OWHQDWLYHV/RFDWLRQVDQGGDWHVRIWKHSXEOLFLQIRUPDWLRQPHHWLQJV

ZHUHDGYHUWLVHGORFDOO\)5$KHOGDSXEOLFKHDULQJRQWKH'3(,6RQ$XJXVWLQ

:DVKLQJWRQ '&  &RPPHQWV UHFHLYHG GXULQJ WKH SXEOLF LQIRUPDWLRQ PHHWLQJV SXEOLF

KHDULQJ DQG WKH 'RFNHW 0DQDJHPHQW 6\VWHP ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQ WKLV 3(,6 DQG DUH

DGGUHVVHGLQ9ROXPH,,RIWKLV3(,6

$/7(51$7,9(6

+LJK6SHHG*URXQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ +6*7%DFNJURXQG)5$KDVEHHQHYDOXDWLQJ

UDLO DQG 0DJOHY UHDODWHG +6*7 V\VWHPV WKDW FRXOG VDWLVI\ FLW\WRFLW\ WUDQVSRUW IRU D

QXPEHURI\HDUV2SWLRQVWKDW)5$KDVHOYDOXDWHGLQFOXGH

 $FFHOHUDLO  $FFHOHUDLO FRQVLVWV RI XSJUDGLQJ LQWHUFLW\ UDLO RQ H[LVWLQJ UDLO

FRUULGRUVZKLFKPRVWO\VKDUHULJKWVRIZD\ZLWKIUHLJKWWUDIILF7RSVSHHGVDUH

LQWKHUDQJHRIWRNPKWRPSK2QH$FFHOHUDLOH[DPSOHLVWKH

(PSLUH5HJLRQDOVHUYLFHEHWZHHQ1HZ<RUN&LW\DQG$OEDQ\1<

 1HZ+LJK6SHHG5DLO+651HZ+65V\VWHPVUHSUHVHQWWKHDGYDQFHGVWHHO

ZKHHORQUDLO V\WHPV WKDW RSHUDWH RQ DOPRVW H[FOXVLYH ULJKWVRIZD\  8VLQJ

HOHFWULF SURSXOVLRQWKHVH V\VWHPV DFKLHYH UHYHQXH VHUYLFH RSHUDWLQJ VSHHGV RI

NPKPSKDQGKDYHDFKLHYHGDUHFRUGVSHHGRINPKPSK

+65H[DPSOHVLQFOXGH-DSDQ¶V6KLQNDQVHQ)UDQFH¶VWUDLQDJUDQGHYLWHVVH RU

7*9 DQG *HUPDQ\¶V ,QWHUFLW\ ([SUHVV ,&(  $W WKH KLJKHU VSHHGV

PDLQWDLQLQJ +65 V\VWHPV EHFRPHV PRUH FRVWO\ WKDQ $FFHOHUDLO  +RZHYHU

LQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKH)UHQFK7*9PDQXIDFWXUHUVVXJJHVWWKDWWKLVV\VWHPFRXOG

EHXVHGRQQHZSURMHFWVLQVXVWDLQHGUHYHQXHVHUYLFHVSHHGVRIXSWRNPK

PSK

 0DJOHY0DJQHWLFOHYLWDWLRQ0DJOHYXVHVPDJQHWLFIRUFHVWROLIWSURSHODQG

JXLGH WKH WUDLQ RYHU D VSHFLDO JXLGHZD\  7KH SRZHU WR SURSHO WKH WUDLQ LV

SURYLGHGLQWKHJXLGHZD\0DJOHYGRHVQRWUHTXLUHZKHHOVRURWKHUPHFKDQLFDO

SDUWVDWKLJKHUVSHHGVIRUVXSSRUWRUSURSXOVLRQ:LWKRXWZKHHOVRURWKHU

FRPSRQHQWVWRFDXVH UHVLVWDQFHFUXLVLQJ VSHHGVXSWRNPKPSKDUH

SUDFWLFDO7KLVVSHHGZRXOGDOORZ0DJOHYWRDFKLHYHDLUFRPSHWLWLYHWULSWLPHV

DWORQJHUWULSGLVWDQFHVWKDQRWKHU+6*7RSWLRQV)5$

)5$ KDV LGHQWLILHG D QXPEHU RI IDFWRUV WKDW DUH UHOHYDQW WR WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ SODQQHUV LQ

GHFLGLQJZKLFKW\SHRI+6*7ZLOOVDWLVI\WKHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHHGVRISDUWLFXODUFRUULGRUV

7KHVHLQFOXGH

 )DVWHU7ULS7LPHV

 +LJK5HOLDELOLW\'XULQJ3HDN'HPDQG

 &RQYHQLHQFH

 6KDUHG&RUULGRUV

 +LJK&DSDFLW\
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

(6

 6DIHW\

 3HWUROHXPDQG,QGHSHQGHQFH

$/7(51$7,9(0$*/(97(&+12/2*,(6

7KHFRQFHSWRIPDJQHWLFDOO\OHYLWDWHGWUDLQVZDVILUVWLGHQWLILHGDOPRVW\HDUVDJR,Q

WZR$PHULFDQV 'DQE\DQG3RZHOOZHUHJUDQWHGSDWHQWVRQWKHLU0DJOHYGHVLJQ

6LQFH WKHQ H[WHQVLYH UHVHDUFK RQ 0DJOHY WHFKQRORJLHV KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG LQ VHYHUDO

FRXQWULHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH 86 *HUPDQ\ DQG -DSDQ KDYH WKH PRVW H[SHULHQFH LQ

WHFKQRORJ\GHYHORSPHQW%RWKKDYHWHVWWUDFNVDQGKDYHSHUIRUPHGH[WHQVLYHWHVWLQJRI

YHKLFOHVV\VWHPVDQGJXLGHZD\V

7KHUHDUHWZR0DJOHYWHFKQRORJLHVEHLQJSURSRVHGIRUWKH0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

2I WKH VHYHQ SDUWLFLSDQWV DOO EXW RQH FKRVH WKH *HUPDQGHYHORSHG 7UDQVUDSLG

,QWHUQDWLRQDO75,75V\VWHPVHH$SSHQGL[&)ORULGD'27FKRVHWKH0DJOHY

WHFKQRORJ\ ZKLFKLV EDVHG RQWKH RULJLQDO 'DQE\3RZHOO GHVLJQ  7KHUH DUH VLJQLILFDQW

GLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKHWZRWHFKQRORJLHV7KHPDMRUWHFKQLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHWZR

0DJOHYWHFKQRORJLHVDUHVXPPDUL]HGEHORZ

7UDQVUDSLG,QWHUQDWLRQDO75,0DJOHY6\VWHP

6XVSHQVLRQDQG*XLGDQFH 7KH75,WUDLQYHKLFOHZUDSVDURXQGWKHJXLGHZD\

WRVHFXUHO\KROGDQGJXLGHWKHYHKLFOH7KHYHKLFOHLVVXSSRUWHGDQGJXLGHGE\

HOHFWURPDJQHWLF IRUFHV EHWZHHQ HOHFWURPDJQHWV DWWDFKHG WR WKH JXLGHZD\ DQG

SHUPDQHQW PDJQHWV KRXVHG RQ WKH XQGHUVLGH RI WKH YHKLFOH  7KH JDS EHWZHHQ

WKH WRS RI WKH JXLGHZD\ DQG WKH XQGHUVLGH RI WKH YHKLFOH LV HOHFWURQLFDOO\

PDLQWDLQHGDWDERXWFPLQ

3URSXOVLRQ  8QOLNH FRQYHQWLRQDO WUDLQV WKH 75, SURSXOVLRQ V\VWHP LV LQ WKH

JXLGHZD\ QRWWKH YHKLFOH$WUDYHOLQJPDJQHWLF ILHOGLQWKH JXLGHZD\ SURSHOV

WKHYHKLFOH%\DGMXVWLQJWKH IUHTXHQF\RIWKHHOHFWULFFXUUHQWLQWKHJXLGHZD\

VSHHGLVFRQWUROOHG

*XLGHZD\7KHJXLGHZD\VWUXFWXUHLVXVXDOO\DFRQWLQXRXV37 ́VKDSHWKDWFDQ

EHHOHYDWHGRQW\SLFDOEULGJH VW\OHFROXPQVPRXQWHGDWJUDGHRQDFRQWLQXRXV

IRXQGDWLRQ RU XVLQJ RWKHU FRQILJXUDWLRQV  7KH JXLGHZD\ VWUXFWXUH FDQ EH

IDEULFDWHG IURPVWHHORUFRQFUHWH$XQLTXHVWHHOJXLGHZD\FURVVRYHUKDVEHHQ

GHYHORSHGWRHQDEOHVZLWFKLQJWRDGMDFHQWJXLGHZD\

7UDLQ  7UDLQ FRQVLVWV FRPSULVH WZR RU PRUH YHKLFOHV  6HDWLQJ FDSDFLW\

GHSHQGV RQ FRQVLVW OHQJWK DQG FDQ EH DSSUR[LPDWHO\   DQG  VHDWV

UHVSHFWLYHO\ IRU WKH   DQG VHFWLRQ 75, WUDLQ VHWV  $ WKUHHVHFWLRQ WUDLQ

ZHLJKVPHWULFWRQVOEVZKHQORDGHG

&RQWURO&RPPXQLFDWLRQV(OHFWULF 6XEVWDWLRQV  7UDLQV DUH FRQWUROOHG DQG

PRQLWRUHG IURP D FHQWUDO RSHUDWLRQV FHQWHU DQGWKH V\VWHPLV IXOO\ DXWRPDWHG
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 5

The guideway is powered from electric substations located along the guideway

structure.

Stations/Maintenance Facility - Stations could resemble conventional rail

stations. However, for safety considerations, doors on platforms would prevent

access to the guideway, opening only when passengers are accessing the train.

A maintenance facility is required for vehicle servicing, maintenance, and

storage.

Safety - The system is inherently safe as the vehicle carriage wraps around the

“T” shaped guideway, severely restricting derailment. The train’s location is

monitored from the control center at all times, and on-board attendants can

assist in emergencies. In the event of an unscheduled stop, the train will have

the capability to continue to an auxiliary stopping area, from where passengers

can disembark. The TRI design will be required to satisfy the requirements

pertaining to fire safety, emergency planning, emergency exits, special lighting,

and signage in the FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (49 C.F.R.

Part 238).

Maglev 2000 System

Suspension and Guidance - The Maglev 2000 vehicle is supported and guided

by electromagnetic forces induced in the guideway. The repulsive forces

levitate the vehicle to a substantial gap of 15 cm (6 in) above the guideway.

Propulsion - The Maglev 2000 system employs a linear synchronous motor, in

which electric current introduced into the propulsion windings on the guideway

interacts with the high field strength superconducting magnets on the vehicle to

produce a longitudinal thrust that keeps the vehicle moving.

Guideway - The guideway structure is composed of a single hollow reinforced

concrete box-beam. Attached to the sides of this structure are thin panels of

polymer concrete in which are imbedded aluminum wire loops that act to

levitate, guide, and propel the vehicle. The M2000 guideway is designed with a

high-speed electronic switch that enables movement between tracks without

mechanical means.

Train - The vehicle carries 92 passengers and has four wheelchair positions.

The vehicles are designed to operate as single units, but can be coupled into 2 or

3 car consists, allowing for a passenger carrying capacity of up to 276 people.

The system has been designed to allow for freight carrying capability in

vehicles designed to transport containers or truck trailers.

Control/Communications/Electric Substations – Movement of the M-2000

vehicles on the Maglev 2000 system would be controlled from a central traffic

facility and not by operators on the individual vehicles. Sensors on the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 6

guideway will instantaneously determine the location and speed of all vehicles,

and transmit the data back to the central facility. A 69 kv alternating current

(AC) power line running the length of the guideway provides power to the

system, and transformers spaced about every 10 km (6 mi) reduce the voltage to

6 kv direct current (DC).

Stations/Maintenance Facility - The Maglev 2000 train stations would

resemble conventional rail stations. The operations control facility will be

located at the maintenance facility.

Safety - The guideway is elevated above grade to restrict access, and all

portions of the guideway are continuously monitored by the central control

facility, both by video cameras and guideway sensors. If levitation were to fail

due to an event such as the collision of the vehicle with an external object on the

guideway, the system is designed so that the vehicle would come down safely

on the guideway and slide to a controlled, non-injurious stop. The Maglev 2000

will be required to satisfy the requirements pertaining to fire safety, emergency

planning, emergency exits, special lighting, and signage in the FRA’s Passenger

Equipment Safety Standards (49 C.F.R. Part 238).

ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

Action Alternative. The action alternative includes seven location alternatives as

follows:

California - The California Maglev Alternative corridor extends between Los

Angeles International Airport (LAX) through to Union Station in downtown

Los Angeles (LA) (and further east to Ontario International Airport (ONT) and

then March Air Reserve Base, a distance of approximately 133 km (83 mi). The

area is mostly developed. The project is planned to be a part of and compatible

with, the larger north-south high-speed rail system proposed to serve the entire

state. The California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency is

developing this project.

Florida - A 29 km (18 mi) corridor linking Port Canaveral to the Kennedy

Space Center (KSC) and the Space Coast Regional Airport is the Florida

Maglev Alternative. The area is lightly developed. This alternative can link to

a future extension along the Beeline Expressway connecting to Orlando

International Airport. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is the

project sponsor.

Georgia - The Georgia Maglev Alternative is a 50 km (31 mi) corridor

extending from Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport to a multi-modal station

north of the airport. The exact location of the northern station has not been

finalized. The area is mostly developed. The alternative could be extended in

the future to a larger 178 km (110 mi) corridor serving the cities of Atlanta and

Chattanooga. The project sponsor is the Atlanta Regional Commission.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 7

Louisiana - The Louisiana Maglev Alternative traverses the central section of

the Gulf Coast High Speed Ground Transportation Corridor. The alternative

extends from downtown New Orleans through to the New Orleans International

Airport (NOIA), across Lake Pontchartrain, and ends on the northern side of the

lake, a distance of approximately 78 km (48 mi). The area consists of

approximately half developed area and half lake crossing. The Greater New

Orleans Expressway Commission is the project sponsor.

Maryland - The Maryland Maglev Alternative is approximately 64 km (40 mi)

in length, and extends from Washington, D.C. north, to the BaltimoreWashington International Airport (BWI) and the City of Baltimore. In addition

to the two larger cities, several suburban communities are located within the

alternative. The area contains several large tracts of land owned by the Federal

Government. The alternative could be extended north to Boston and south to

Charlotte, creating an Eastern Seaboard Maglev system. The Maryland Mass

Transit Administration is the project sponsor.

Nevada - The 56 km (35 mi) Nevada Maglev Alternative links Primm, located

on the Nevada-California state border, with downtown Las Vegas. The majority

of the alternative is located within the Nevada Department of Transportation

(NDOT) right-of-way for I-15 and traverses an area of sparse development and

gentle topography. The alternative could be extended in the future to complete

the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project linking Las Vegas with

Anaheim. The California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission is the project

sponsor.

Pennsylvania - The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative extends from Pittsburgh

International Airport (PIT) to the City of Greensburg, passing through

downtown Pittsburgh and Monroeville, a distance of about 76 km (47 mi). The

alternative consists hilly topography bisected by numerous watercourses.

Elevations range between 213 - 457 m (700 - 1,500 ft). The alternative could be

extended in the future to be part of a larger corridor connecting Pittsburgh and

Philadelphia, and continuing to Washington, D.C. to the east; West Virginia to

the south; Cleveland to the west, and New York to the north. The Port

Authority of Allegheny County is the project sponsor.

No-Action Alternative. The Maglev Deployment Program has been established as a

way to demonstrate an alternative transportation system to alleviate the congestion in

airway and automotive corridors resulting from increasing demand for travel. Under the

No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed. Economic

and population growth will continue around the country, causing associated increases in

inter-city travel demand and congestion, and inducing additional airport, railway, and

highway expansion projects. It is uncertain what actions, if any, would be taken to

develop advanced high-speed ground transportation to improve inter- and intra-regional

transportation within the United States whether or not the Maglev program proceeds. If
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 8

the program does not proceed, it is less likely that Maglev would be seriously considered

in future transportation corridor planning. This may forclose the fastest high-speed

ground transportation technology currently available not only in the candidate corridors,

but throughout the Nation.

PREFERED ALTERNATIVE

After publication of the DPEIS, the seven project teams submitted project descriptions

concluding phase three of the Maglev Deployment Program. FRA evaluated the seven

project descriptions for strengths and weaknesses according to factors reflecting

standards and criteria established in The Maglev Deployment Program Final Rule (65

Fed. Reg. 2342, January 20, 2000), using a multidisciplinary evaluation team of

Department of Transportation professionals. Upon consideration of this evaluation, and

after carefully analyzing all of the relevant factors, including environmental issues, the

US Secretary of Transportation selected the Action Alternative as the agency’s preferred

alternative, (See Appendix M) and identified the Maryland and Pennsylvania projects for

continued evaluation and initial project development, including engineering design and

analysis. The Secretary of Transportation may select from these projects for design and

construction based on more detailed project information. Any decision to proceed with

the construction phase of the program would be contingent on receipt of Congressional

appropriations and completion of additional environmental documentation in the form of

a site-specific environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Tables ES-1 (a-c) summarize and compare the potential impacts for each of the seven

Maglev Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative.

As a requirement of the Maglev Deployment Program and cooperative agreements

established between FRA and the selected states, a technical review of the affected

environment and potential environmental consequences was prepared by each participant

(MTA(a), 2000; FDOT(a), 2000; GNOEC(a), 2000; ARC(a), 2000; CNSSTC(a), 2000;

CM, 2000; PAAC(a), 2000). The purpose of these technical documents was to provide

the baseline environmental data used by FRA in the preparation of this PEIS. In addition,

the alternatives developed Project Description documents that were used as reference

where necessary (MTA (b), 2000; FDOT(b), 2000; GNOEC(b), 2000; ARC(b), 2000;

CNSSTC(b), 2000; CM(a), 2000; PAAC(b), 2000). The following is a summary of the

environmental consequences and mitigation for each of the alternatives based upon

information provided by each participant.

Topography, Geology And Soils. Construction and operation of a well-sited and

properly constructed Maglev system in any of the seven proposed locations would result

in insignificant adverse impacts to the physical setting of topography, geology, and soils.

Minor changes in topography and soils would occur from blasting, excavation and

grading within the immediate corridor of the selected alternative. There is potential for

erosion during construction of any of the alternatives, with potentially higher risks for the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 9

California, Florida, and Louisiana Alternatives due to their locations in flood-prone

and/or erosion-prone regions.

There is a small risk of potential loss or damage to coal deposits in the vicinity of the

proposed Pennsylvania Maglev Alernative, and a small potential for impacts to oil and

gas exploration in the vicinity of the Pennsylvania and Louisiana Maglev Alternatives.

Seismic activity is a risk for most of the Maglev Alternatives, but only a high risk for the

California and Nevada Alternatives.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to road expansion. The construction of new roads and highways is likely to result in

permanent disruption of drainage patterns to a greater extent than the elevated Maglev

guideway system. However, it is expected that the No-Action Alternative could result in

impacts similar to those for the Maglev Alternatives – erosion and sedimentation, loss or

damage to mineral deposits. Thus, the No-Action Alternative would likely have

insignificant adverse impacts on topography, geology, and soils.

Climate. The construction of a Maglev system could have long-term benefits or impacts

to climate from changes in CO2 emissions. At the preliminary stage of design, it is

expected that the California, Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Alternatives would

decrease the production of greenhouse gas, while the Florida, Georgia, and Nevada

Alternatives would cause an increase.

Climate, however, could have impacts on the operations, service schedule, or

maintenance requirements of the Maglev infrastructure. Excessive temperature variations

and sandstorms may occur in the Nevada Alternative, potentially resulting in distortion of

the steel guideway and reduced visibility, respectively, which could interrupt service or

necessitate frequent maintenance/repair. In the California Alternative, there is a risk of

damaging mudslides from torrential rains on steep slopes. The Florida and Louisiana

Maglev Alternatives could potentially be subject to damage from strong hurricanes,

tornados, and associated flooding. For the Georgia Altenative, there is a similar but

lesser potential for damage from tornados and hurricanes. In Maryland and

Pennsylvania, the Maglev infrastructure could be damaged or impaired by northeasters,

blizzards, ice storms, tornadoes (Pennsylvania), or weakened tropical storms (Maryland).

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to road expansion. The increase in motor vehicle travel could result in increased

greenhouse gas production thus contributing to potential climate change.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 10

Table ES-1(a) - Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Resource Alternative

No-Action California Florida

Topography,

Geology, and

Soils

Insignificant

adverse impact .

Potential insignificant adverse impact to topography, geology, and soil.

Maglev commonly constructed along disturbed utility and transportation

corridors. Impact is considered to be minimal and localized.

Climate Potential

increase in

greenhouse gas.

Potential decrease in greenhouse

gas production and benefit to climate.

Potential increase in greenhouse

gas production and impact on

climate.

Vegetation,

Wildlife &

Wetlands

Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse

impact. Potential impact to 0.61

hectares (1.51 acres) wetlands.

Potential significant adverse

impact. Potential impact to 47.8

hectares (118.1 acres) of wetlands.

Endangered

Species

Potential impact. Potential significant adverse impact.

25 species identified within the study

corridor.

Potential significant adverse

impact. 63 species identified

within the study corridor.

Water Quality Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse impact. Maglev propulsion results in few

emissions that could impact water quality.

Flood Hazard Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse

impact. The study corridor crosses

0.5 - 1.5 km (0.3 - 0.9 mi) of

floodplains.

Potential significant adverse

impact. The study corridor crosses

11 – 26 km (7 - 16 mi) of

floodplains.

Coastal Zone

Management

Potential impact. No significant adverse impact. Alternatives within the coastal zone are

expected to be consistent with state coastal zone management plans.

Air Quality Potential impact. Potential benefits from the reduction of petroleum related emissions.

Solid and

Hazardous

Waste

Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse impacts. Private contractor to use nearest

available disposal facility.

Socioeconomic,

Environmental

Justice, and

Elderly and

Disabled

Potential impact. Maglev can follow existing transportation and utility corridors, some taking

may occur. Overall should not have a significant adverse impact.

Land Use,

Farmlands & 4(f)

Resources

Potential impact. Potential moderate adverse impacts

from farmland and park concerns.

Potential significant adverse

impact from land use, farmland

and park concerns.

Aesthetics Potential impact. Potential significant adverse impact. Elevated guideway could impact

open space, residential and open water vistas.

Historical,

Archaeological,

and Cultural

Resources

Potential impact. Potential significant adverse impact. Potential insignificant adverse

impact.

Transportation Congestion and

delays

anticipated

increasing.

Potential insignificant adverse impact

to local traffic. Potential significant

benefit to regional traffic and

transportation.

Potential insignificant adverse

impact to local traffic. Potential

moderate benefit to regional traffic

and transportation.

Energy Petroleum

dependant

transportation

increasing.

Potential moderate beneficial impact.

Net reduction in regional energy

consumption of 3,305 - 3,823 billion

BTU per year.

Potential moderate negative

impact. Net increase in regional

energy consumption of 32.79

billion BTU per year.

Public Health

(EMF/EMR) and

Safety

Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse impact to physical safety. Maglev vehicles,

guideways, facilities and operation are designed to achieve or exceed all

safety and EMF/EMR standards. Minimal at grade crossings.

Noise and

Vibration

Potential impact. Potential insignificant adverse impact

from facilities noise/vibration and

operational vibration. Potential

significant impact from operational

noise (2903 impacts, 1976 severe

impacts).

Potential insignificant adverse

impact from facilities

noise/vibration and operational

vibration. Potential significant

impact from operational noise (11

impacts, 5 severe impacts).

Electromagnetic

Environment

Potential impact Interference unlikely from the common communication equipment,

unintentional emissions from Maglev operation should have insignificant

adverse impact to other radio wave users.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 11

Table ES-1(b) - Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation, Continued

Resource Alternative

Georgia Louisiana Maryland

Topography, Geology,

and Soils

Potential insignificant adverse impact to topography, geology, and soil. Maglev commonly

constructed along disturbed utility and transportation corridors. Impact is considered to be

minimal and localized.

Climate Potential increase in

greenhouse gas production

and impact on climate

Potential decrease in greenhouse gas production and benefit to

climate.

Vegetation, Wildlife &

Wetlands

Potential insignificant adverse

impact. Potential impact to 4

hectares (10 acres) of

wetlands.

Potential significant adverse

impact. Potential impact to

42.0 hectares (103.8 acres) of

wetlands.

Potential significant adverse

impact. Potential impact to 10

hectares (25 acres) – 25

hectares (62 acres ) of

wetlands.

Endangered Species Potential significant adverse

impact. 9 species identified

within the study corridor.

Potential significant adverse

impact. 9 species identified

within the study corridor.

Potential significant adverse

impact. 10 species identified

within the study corridor.

Water Quality Potential insignificant adverse impact. Maglev propulsion results in few emissions that could

impact water quality.

Flood Hazard Potential insignificant adverse

impact. The study corridor

crosses 0.7 - 1.0 km (0.4 - 0.6

mi) of floodplains.

Potential significant adverse

impact. The study corridor

crosses 16 - 28 km (10 - 17 mi)

of floodplains.

Potential insignificant adverse

impact. The study corridor

crosses 7.0 - 8.0 km (4.3 - 5.0

mi) of floodplains.

Coastal Zone

Management

No significant adverse impact. Alternatives within the coastal zone are expected to be

consistent with state coastal zone management plans.

Air Quality Potential benefits from the reduction of petroleum related emissions.

Solid and Hazardous

Waste

Potential insignificant adverse impacts. Private contractor to use nearest available disposal

facility.

Socioeconomic,

Environmental Justice,

and Elderly and Disabled

Maglev can follow existing transportation and utility corridors, some taking may occur. Potential

significant adverse impact.

Land Use, Farmlands &

4(f) Resources

Potential moderate adverse

impact to farmland and parks.

Potential minor adverse impact

to farmland and recreation.

Potential moderate adverse

impact to farmland.

Aesthetics Potential significant adverse impact. Elevated guideway could impact open space and

residential vistas.

Historical, Archaeological,

and Cultural Resources

Potential significant adverse

impact.

Potential moderate adverse

impact.

Potential moderate adverse

impact.

Transportation Potential insignificant adverse

impact to local traffic.

Potential moderate benefit to

regional traffic and

transportation.

Potential insignificant adverse impact to local traffic. Potential

significant benefit to regional traffic and transportation.

Energy Potential insignificant adverse

impact. Net increase in

regional energy consumption

of 134.8 billion BTU per year.

Potential moderate positive

impact. Net reduction in

regional energy consumption of

691 billion BTU per year.

Potential moderate positive

impact. Net decrease in

regional energy consumption of

1,536.6 billion BTU per year

Public Health (EMF/EMR)

and Safety

Potential insignificant adverse impact to physical safety. Maglev vehicles, guideways, facilities

and operation are designed to achieve or exceed all safety and EMF/EMR standards. Minimal at

grade crossings.

Noise and Vibration Potential insignificant adverse

impact from facilities

noise/vibration and operational

vibration. Potential significant

impact from operational noise

(115 impacts, 42 severe

impacts).

Potential insignificant adverse

impact from facilities

noise/vibration and operational

vibration. Potential significant

impact from operational noise

(401 impacts, 271 severe

impacts).

Potential insignificant adverse

impact from facilities

noise/vibration and operational

vibration. Potential significant

impact from operational noise

(115-446 impacts, 52-316

severe impacts).

Electromagnetic

Environment

Interference unlikely from the common communication equipment, unintentional emissions from

Maglev operation should have insignificant adverse impact to other radio wave users.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 12

Table ES-1(c) - Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation, Continued

Resource Alternative

Nevada Pennsylvania

Topography,

Geology, and Soils

Potential insignificant adverse impact to topography, geology, and soil.

Maglev commonly constructed along disturbed utility and transportation

corridors. Impact is considered to be minimal and localized.

Climate Potential increase in greenhouse

gas production and impact on

climate.

Potential decrease in greenhouse gas

production and benefit to climate.

Vegetation, Wildlife

& Wetlands

Potential insignificant adverse

impact. Potential impact to 0.45 ha

(1.1 ac) of federal waters.

Potential insignificant adverse impact.

Potential impact to 4.9 hectares (12.1

acres) of wetlands.

Endangered

Species

Potential significant adverse

impact. 7 species identified within

the study corridor.

Potential significant adverse impact. 1

specie identified within study corridor.

Water Quality Potential insignificant adverse impact. Maglev propulsion results in few

emissions that could impact water quality.

Flood Hazard Potential insignificant adverse

impact. The study corridor crosses

4.0 – 5.0 km (2.5 - 3.1 mi) of

floodplains.

Potential significant adverse impact.

The study corridor crosses 1.2 - 17.5 km

(0.7 - 10.9 mi) of floodplains.

Coastal Zone

Management

No significant adverse impact. Alternatives within the coastal zone are

expected to be consistent with state coastal zone management plans.

Air Quality Potential benefits from the reduction of petroleum related emissions.

Solid and

Hazardous Waste

Potential insignificant adverse impacts. Private contractor to use nearest

available disposal facility.

Socioeconomic,

Environmental

Justice, and Elderly

and Disabled

Maglev can follow existing transportation and utility corridors, some taking

may occur. Overall should not have a significant adverse impact.

Land Use,

Farmlands & 4(f)

Resources

Potential insignificant adverse

impact to land use.

Potential significant adverse impact to

farmland and recreation.

Aesthetics Potential significant adverse impact. Elevated guideway could impact open

space and residential vistas.

Historical,

Archaeological, and

Cultural Resources

Potential insignificant adverse

impact.

Potential significant adverse impact.

Transportation Potential insignificant adverse

impact to local traffic. Potential

moderate benefit to regional traffic

and transportation.

Potential insignificant adverse impact to

local traffic. Potential significant benefit

to regional traffic and transportation.

Energy Potential insignificant adverse

impact. Net increase in regional

energy consumption of 1,387 billion

BTU per year.

Potential moderate beneficial impact.

Net reduction in regional energy

consumption of 6,485 billion BTU per

year.

Public Health

(EMF/EMR) and

Safety

Potential insignificant adverse impact to physical safety. Maglev vehicles,

guideways, facilities and operation are designed to achieve or exceed all

safety and EMF/EMR standards. Minimal at grade crossings.

Noise and Vibration Potential insignificant adverse

impact from facilities noise/vibration

and operational vibration. Potential

significant impact from operational

noise (1 impact, 3 severe impacts).

Potential insignificant adverse impact

from facilities noise/vibration and

operational vibration. Potential

significant impact from operational noise

(225-937 impacts, 0 severe impacts).

Electromagnetic

Environment

Interference unlikely from the common communication equipment,

unintentional emissions from Maglev operation should have insignificant

adverse impact to other radio wave users.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 13

Natural Ecosystems And Wetlands. Maglev emits radio waves, particularly at

extremely low frequency (ELF), and produces electromagnetic fields (EMF). Little is

known about the effects of ELF and EMF on wildlife and natural environments. A

literature review of available studies found no effects on wildlife attributable to electric

and magnetic fields. As such, there would likely be no significant adverse impacts on

wildlife due to EMF.

All of the Maglev Alternatives would have some impact on natural ecosystems and/or

wetlands. The California Alternative is primarily developed, and no important habitats

would be crossed; wetland impacts would range between 0.07 to 0.61 ha (0.17 to 1.51

ac.) The Florida Alternative traverses large expanses of estuarine habitat, up to 47.8 ha

(118.1 ac) of wetlands, a national wildlife refuge, large areas of undisturbed habitat, and

critical and unique habitats. The Georgia Alternative is highly developed and has many

existing rights-of-way; wetland impacts would range between 2 and 4 ha (5 and 10 ac.)

The Louisiana Alternative would cross sensitive pine savanna habitat, habitat of protected

bird species, up to approximately 42 ha (103.8 ac) of wetlands, a federal wetland

restoration area, and a large brackish estuary. In Maryland, the alternative passes through

large forest tracts containing sensitive species, up to 11 crossings of wetlands of state

concern, and a total potentially affected wetland area of up to 10 to 25 ha (25 to 62 ac.)

The Nevada Alternative is partially located within a developed urban area, and the desert

habitat to be disturbed is not unique or rare; up to 0.45 ha (1.1 ac.) of federal waters could

be impacted. The Pennsylvania Alternative includes urban areas, forests, rangeland, and

open water, none of which are noted to be rare or unique; wetland impacts would be up to

4.9 ha (12.1 ac.)

Based on these findings, there would likely be no significant adverse impact from the

California, Georgia, Nevada, or Pennsylvania Alternatives, whereas the Florida,

Louisiana, and Maryland Alternatives could each have a significant adverse impact on

natural ecosystems and wetlands.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have considerable impacts to ecological resources (vegetation, wildlife, and

wetlands) from habitat fragmentation and destruction, and wetlands contamination and

loss. In addition, the increased motor vehicle travel could have negative affects on air

quality potentially causing particulate deposition and acid rain, thus further impacting

ecological resources.

Endangered Species. Threatened or endangered species have been identified as

potentially occurring within the corridors of all of the Alternatives. For any of the

Alternatives, the potential for a significant adverse impact exists. The specific locations

of the species in relation to the alternatives have not been fully investigated at this stage

of project planning, so specific impacts, if any, cannot be identified.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 14

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have considerable impacts on endangered species including encroachment, habitat

fragmentation, and destruction. The significance of the impacts would have to be

determined on a local and regional basis.

Water Quality. All of the Maglev action alternatives will utilize elevated guideways, so

support structures would occupy a minimal amount of surface area, grading would be

minimized, and drainage patterns are expected to remain the same. However, the

addition of impervious surface at operations and maintenance facilities, parking lots, and

other user support facilities has the potential to increase runoff and associated sediment

and contaminant loads into adjacent waters, for any of the alternatives. With the use of

best management practices during construction and implementation of a stormwater

pollution prevention plan, these potential adverse effects on water quality are anticipated

to be minor.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. This infrastructure development has the

potential to increase impervious surfaces to a greater extent than the development

associated with Maglev implementation. Runoff from impervious surfaces is a regulatory

issue related to water quality. Drainage patterns would also be impacted by potential new

construction. The potential impairment of air quality could also raise concerns over

potential negative effects derived from particulate deposition and acid rain effects.

Therefore, the No-Action Alternative could have a potential moderate impact on water

quality.

Flood Hazard. All of the seven Maglev Alternatives have some estimated impacts to

floodplains, based on their proposed alignments. Maximum estimated lengths in the

floodplain for the alternatives are the following, from greatest to least: Louisiana (27

km/17 mi); Florida (26 km/16 mi); Pennsylvania (17.5 km/10.9 mi); Maryland (8 km/5

mi); Nevada (5 km/3 mi); California (1.4 km/0.9 mi); and Georgia (1 km/0.6 mi).

The specific effects of these floodplain encroachments on the local potential for flooding

would depend on the particular location and design of the alternative Maglev system’s

guideways, stations and other support facilities, which would be identified during the

final design stage. However, based on these relative impacts, there may be potential

significant adverse impacts to floodplains for the Louisiana, Florida and Pennsylvania

Alternatives, and potential insignificant adverse impacts from the remaining alternatives.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. This infrastructure development has the

potential to encroach on floodplains, causing increased floodplain elevation and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 15

expansion, potentially leading to more property damage. Therefore, the No-Action

Alternative could have a potential impact on floodplains.

Coastal Zone Management. The three Maglev Alternatives in the coastal zone --

Florida, Louisiana, and Maryland -- were evaluated for consistency with their respective

state coastal management programs, and are expected to be in compliance. There would

therefore be no significant adverse impacts to coastal zones from any of the Alternatives,

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. This infrastructure development has the

potential to impact a coastal zone.

Air Quality. Air quality emissions analysis is done on a microscale (local) or mesoscale

(regional) basis. A microscale analysis was not conducted for any of the proposed

Maglev Alternatives because the location and design of site-specific Maglev system

elements have not been finalized. However, a microscale analysis will be conducted

upon advanced planning and design of the preferred Maglev corridor.

A mesoscale analysis was conducted for each of the proposed Maglev corridors.

Increased air emissions from regional power plants that generate power for the Maglev

system were compared to decreased air emissions from the anticipated reduction in

vehicle miles traveled as a consequence of Maglev implementation. In most cases, a net

benefit, or a reduction in criteria pollutant emissions, would occur with the

implementation of an operational Maglev system. However, this conclusion could vary

with the type of power plants used to supply power to the Maglev system. Fossil fuel,

natural gas and coal plants produce significantly more air emissions than nuclear, wind,

or hydroelectric plants. Overall, no significant impacts or exceedances of National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are anticipated for any of the Maglev

Alternatives.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country.

This expansion could result in increased intercity travel demand and ensuing congestion.

The increased operational congestion could also lead to greater air-pollutant emissions.

Solid And Hazardous Waste. The Maglev operation is not considered a substantial

producer of solid or hazardous waste. However, construction and operation of a Maglev

system in any of the seven alternatives would generate solid waste requiring removal,

transport, and disposal. Solid waste from operating stations, user support facilities and

administrative offices would consist of conventional waste such as paper, office supplies,

food products, and food packaging materials. Solid waste from track maintenance

facilities would include office wastes as well as industrial wastes, including materials

containing petroleum products, solvents, batteries, scrap metals, and other used

components. Commercial contractors would dispose of conventional and hazardous solid
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 16

waste at the nearest landfill or hazardous waste disposal facility. No significant adverse

direct or indirect impacts to local solid waste capacity are anticipated.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have impacts on solid waste. The extent of the solid waste impacts and the ability

of existing facilities to handle additional waste would have to be evaluated at the local

and regional levels.

Socioeconomic. Construction and operation of a Maglev system in any of the seven

porposed Locations would result in both positive and negative impacts on the adjacent

communities. Beneficial impacts include the creation of new jobs associated with the

construction and operation of the actual Maglev system, increased accessibility to job

markets along the Maglev corridor, and new jobs created by future development in the

vicinity of proposed Maglev stations. Adverse impacts include the displacement of

people and businesses as a consequence of property acquisitions for the various

components of the Maglev system.

Actual property acquisitions associated with each Maglev Alternative could not be

determined based on the level of planning and design used to assess impacts in this PEIS.

Further analysis would be needed to identify the number of facilities and the land-area

requirements for each of the Maglev Alternatives and any potential mitigation for adverse

impacts to persons or businesses.

The proposed Maglev Alternatives were studied in relation to Executive Order 12898,

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. Census data (1990)

indicate that minority and low-income populations exist in higher proportions in the

California, Georgia, and Nevada Alernatives. Impacts to these populations are

considered marginal, since these proposed Maglev corridors are located within or

immediately adjacent to existing transportation corridors and/or utility and drainage

rights-of-way, such that property acquisitions and displacements would be minimized.

However, public involvement raised significant concern regarding impact of the Georgia

Alternative.

The design of the Maglev system alternatives would affect the ability of elderly,

infirmed, and/or disabled persons to access the system for transportation. In order to

provide the minimum standards for accessibility by individuals with disabilities or elderly

persons, any of the alternative Maglev transportation systems would be designed and

constructed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and any

applicable state and local accessibility/building codes that require accommodation for

those with disabilities.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have negative socioeconomic impacts such as property acquisitions and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 17

displacement of residential and business populations. In addition, transportation

infrastructure expansion could result in disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or

low-income populations, as well as effects to elderly and disabled populations. The

nature and extent of the impacts would have to be determined on a local basis.

Land Use. Construction of any of the Maglev Alternatives would entail direct land use

changes in the path of the guideway and support facilities, as well as possible secondary

effects, as nearby land uses may redevelop to serve the new market of Maglev users. It is

expected that some residential and commercial relocations would be required. There will

also be effects on adjacent land uses from Maglev-associated conditions such as noise

and commuter traffic. It is likely that land use changes or rezoning may be needed to

reduce conflicts with existing land uses.

Site-specific land use impacts could not be evaluated for the PEIS, given the current

conceptual stage of planning and design. The alternatives were assessed, however, for

their relative potential to affect overall land use, which took into account general land use

(e.g., development/redevelopment pressure), farmlands, parklands, and recreation. The

Florida and Pennsylvania Alternatives were assessed to have potential for significant

adverse impacts to land use. The California, Georgia and Maryland Alternatives have

potential to cause moderate adverse impacts, the Louisiana Alternative has potential to

cause a minor adverse impact, and the Nevada Alternative was estimated to have an

insignificant impact on land use.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have considerable impacts to land use (general, farmlands, and recreation areas and

parklands) from alteration and conversion. The impacts would need to be examined on a

local and regional basis.

Visual And Aesthetic Resources. Any of the Maglev Alternatives would cause visual

impacts due to the introduction of elevated guideway elements, elevated stations, parking

lots, power substations, and other ancillary system facilities. Individual locations where

visual impacts may be significant have not yet been identified, and relative impacts

among the alternatives cannot be determined. The severity of impacts would vary with

topography, the sensitivity of adjoining land uses, the proximity of historic sites, the

visual complexity of the existing environment, and the specific placement of Maglev

facilities within the landscape. At the current preliminary stage of design, all of the

Maglev Alternatives can be considered to have potential for significant adverse visual

impacts.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The added transportation infrastructure

elements have the potential for creating visual impacts associated with structures such as
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 18

airports, stations/terminals, parking, and maintenance facilities, support structures such as

bridges, as well as from railroad and highway networks. These impacts would need to be

examined on a local and regional basis, and could potentially be greater than those

incurred under the Maglev Alternatives.

Historic, Archaeological And Cultural Resources. Maglev design has not yet

sufficiently advanced to assess site-specific impacts to historic, architectural,

archaeological, and cultural resources. A variety of prehistoric and historic sites or

resources could potentially be impacted by every action alternative. Most of these

impacts would be physical, resulting from construction, and include those associated with

noise mitigation, such as installing insulation in historic buildings. After construction,

the operational phases of the project would likely have negligible impacts, so long as

maintenance activities occur within previously-disturbed areas. Further consultation with

each State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation is necessary for the identification of all eligible historic properties,

assessment of impacts, and development of mitigation measures.

At the current preliminary stage of design, all alternatives have the potential for

significant adverse impacts on historic architectural, archaeological and cultural

resources. The California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania Alternatives were assessed to have

potential to cause significant adverse impact. The Louisiana and Maryland Alternatives

were assessed to have potential to cause moderate adverse impact. The Florida and

Nevada Alternatives were assessed to have potential significant adverse impact on

historical. archaelogical and cultural resources.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

could have considerable impacts on historic, archaeological and cultural resources. There

is potential to disturb known sites as well as intrude on currently unknown sites if

ground-disturbing activities, such as excavation, occur in their vicinity. These impacts

would have to be examined on a local basis, and could potentially be greater than those

incurred under the Maglev Alternatives.

Transportation. Maglev stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities could have a

potential impact on local traffic and transportation, increasing traffic within specific

locations. In the vicinity of stations, Maglev may contribute to intersection congestion

and vehicle delay because of the additional traffic proceeding to and from station parking

and drop-off and pick-up areas. At this time, the location and design of the Maglev

facilities have not been finalized, so site-specific traffic and transportation impacts cannot

be fully identified and addressed at this planning stage. It should be assumed, therefore,

that there is the potential for a significant adverse impact on local transportation from any

of the Maglev action alternatives.

Impacts to regional transportation were assessed for each Maglev Alternative. It is

anticipated that all of the Maglev action alternatives could have a beneficial impact on
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 19

regional transportation by relieving congestion, reducing overall trip times, reducing

accidents and reducing delays. The extent of the benefit was estimated through analysis

of the reduction in vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT)/vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

expected from implementation of the Maglev system. Reductions in daily VKT (VMT)

for each alterative, as calculated by the project participants would be as follows:

§ California: 3,408,538 VKT (2,117,961 VMT)

§ Florida: 487 VKT (303 VMT)

§ Georgia: 196,153 VKT (110,650 VMT)

§ Louisiana: 992,965 VKT (618,000 VMT)

§ Maryland: 1,287,475 VKT (800,000 VMT)

§ Nevada: 417,719 VKT (259,559 VMT)

§ Pennsylvania: 5,256,120 VKT (3,266,000 VMT)

These beneficial impacts were assessed to be significant for California, Louisiana,

Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and moderate for Florida, Georgia, and Nevada.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country. This growth could result in increased intercity

travel demand and ensuing congestion. Roadways would continue to operate at a lower

level of service and airports would continue to experience delays. The increased

operational congestion could also lead to safety deficiencies of transportation systems.

Thus, the No-Action Alternative could have a significant adverse impact on

transportation and traffic.

Energy. Maglev technology is an energy efficient technology, consuming 30 percent

less energy than a modern high-speed train traveling at the same speed. Compared with

road and air travel, Maglev is even more energy efficient per passenger: for equal

distances, the specific energy consumption of Maglev would be three times lower than

automobile travel and five times lower than air travel. However, the energy efficiency of

the Maglev is affected by the number of stops, varying speeds, hills and curves.

Construction and operation of a Maglev system at any of the seven proposed alternatives

would result in an increased electrical-energy demand on utility companies that supply

these areas. However, the increased electrical-energy demand is not expected to

adversely constrain the distribution of electric power nor increase energy costs and

availability to other users within any of the alternatives.

Some operational Maglev systems would reduce regional vehicular travel, thereby

reducing fossil fuel consumption, while others would induce travel to a greater degree.

For each of the Maglev Alternatives, the regional energy savings were calculated and

compared to the electrical-energy demand of the proposed Maglev system. For the

California, Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Alternatives, an overall energy

savings (beneficial energy impact) would be realized if Maglev were implemented.

Conversely, an overall energy demand increase (adverse energy impact) is anticipated for

the Florida, Georgia, and Nevada Alternatives. However, in all instances, the energy

demand and/or savings is considered to be minimal. Based on these results, no
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 20

significant adverse impacts on energy resources are anticipated for any of the proposed

Maglev Alternatives.

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no additional effects on regional

electric power supply and distribution systems, but there would be continued increases in

fossil-fuel-based energy demand.

Public Safety And Health. Before any of the alternatives are implemented, at the time

of final design the FRA will analyze the safety and health performance of the proposed

action during the site-specific EIS process. The construction and operation of any of the

proposed Maglev systems may affect the environment by incrementally raising current

levels of Electromagnetic fields (EMF) as the Maglev vehicle pases and along electric

power transmission and distribution lines. Maglev sources of electromagnetic radiation

(EMR) would also add to the broad-band non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation

background. The Maglev system and operation does not differ from well accepted

electric rail or transit in this repect.

At present, health risk from EMF is still uncertain and ambiguous after two decades of

research. However, there are national and international EMF and EMR human exposure

safety standards applicable to Maglev. Individuals with electronic medical devices (such

as pacemakers) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference from static, power

frequency and radio-frequency fields. The FRA may require posted warnings to protect

workers and passengers who use electronic medical implants.

The design and operation of the Maglev systems would have to be in compliance with the

most protective applicable EMF/EMR health guidelines and standards. If so, it is

unlikely that the proposed Maglev Alternatives would have any significant adverse

safety, health or environmental impacts from EMF/EMR.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country. If additional transportation infrastructures are

not constructed in response to the growth, the increased operational congestion could lead

to safety deficiencies on current transportation systems. If additional transportation

infrastructures are constructed, safety impacts would have to be examined on a local and

regional basis, and could potentially be greater than those incurred under the Maglev

Alternatives.

Noise & Vibration. Based on the level of planning and design data available for this

PEIS, each of the proposed Maglev Alternatives may result in potentially significant

adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Impacted and severely impacted

receptors include single-family and multi-family residences, schools, hotels, motels,

trailer parks, churches and recreational and community centers.

Considering the number of affected sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Maglev

Alternative, the California system would have the greatest noise impact of all the

alternatives (2903 impacted, 1976 severely impacted). Next would be Louisiana (401

impacted, 271 severely impacted), followed by Pennsylvania (225-937 impacted, 0
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 21

severely impacted), then Maryland (115-446 impacted, 52-316 severely impacted), and

Georgia (115 impacted, 42 severely impacted). Fewer impacts would result from the

remaining alternatives: Florida (11 impacted, 5 severely impacted) and Nevada (1

impacted, 3 severely impacted).

Based on FRA criteria for vibration impacts, no human-annoyance vibration impacts are

expected for the Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, or Pennsylvania Alternatives. A

comprehensive analysis of building-damage vibration was not possible at the current

preliminary stage of design, since detailed site-specific data are required. Analysis of

vibration impacts could be undertaken during future design stages.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. Consequently, as traffic volume increases and

transportation infrastructure is developed, the associated, potentially adverse noise and

vibration effects will continue to escalate. Thus, it is expected that the No-Action

Alternative could result in more significant noise and vibration impacts than those

associated with the Maglev Alternatives.

Electromagnetic Radio Frequency Radiation And Interference. The potential

impacts of any Maglev system on electronic devices along the right-of-way or on-board

are expected to be minimal, as are the potential impacts of surrounding electronics on the

Maglev system, given the rapid decay of the magnetic field with distance from the

guideway. To manage potential electromagnetic interference (EMI), shielding or other

EMI prevention and control options would be established within the selected Maglev

Alternative.

The inventory of potential electronic emitters and receivers that could be interfered with

by Maglev has not yet been completed for any of the alternatives. The potential impact

from EMI would be thoroughly evaluated during site-specific environmental review if the

Maglev Deployment Program proceeds. However, EMI is considered a greater potential

impact to the operation of the Maglev system than to the surrounding environment. If

proper EMI standards are adopted, there is no potential significant adverse impact from

Maglev deployment to other adjacent electromagnetic sources.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be built. It is anticipated that economic and population

growth will continue around the country, increasing motor vehicle travel that could lead

to transportation infrastructure expansion. As new transportation infrastructure and

operating systems are implemented to meet the increasing travel demand, new sources of

EMI would be added to those currently present. These impacts would need to be

examined on a local and regional basis, and could potentially be greater than those

incurred under the Maglev Alternatives.

Construction Impacts. Construction of any of the seven proposed Maglev Alternatives

may result in localized short-term air, noise, vibration, water quality, traffic, visual, utility
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 22

and public safety impacts. These potential impacts, enumerated below, would be

minimized through a number of measures including dust control measures, construction

staging and sequencing, best management practices, a storm water pollution prevention

plan, and a plan for maintenance and protection of traffic, among others.

§ Air quality impacts from construction activities would be temporary and are

primarily associated with the operation of diesel powered equipment and the

generation of fugitive dust from haul roads, excavation and earth moving

activities.

§ Diesel engines and pile driving would likely produce the majority of noise

impacts associated with Maglev system construction, particulary as construction

of the guideway support columns may require the use of an impact pile driver.

The installation of the prefabricated guideway assembly is not anticipated to

generate substantial noise.

§ Vibration would result in varying degrees from construction equipment

operation, impact pile driving, and blasting. Construction of the Maglev

guideway support columns would require extensive pile driving, which may

produce vibration levels damaging to foundations of buildings near the

construction site. Blasting may be required where large areas of bedrock need

to be removed.

§ Water quality impacts may result from erosion of exposed soils and dewatering

of excavation sites.

§ Construction of any of the Maglev Alternatives could potentially result in

temporary interruptions to local traffic patterns, traffic delays, road closures,

and detours.

§ Temporary visual impacts to adjacent properties would occur during

construction, due to views of heavy equipment, material stockpiles, and

fugitive dust.

§ Utility relocations would likely be required for construction of any of the

Maglev Alternatives. Temporary service disruptions may be experienced

during the relocation process.

§ Public safety and limiting access to construction sites would be a concern

during the duration of construction.

The No-Action Alternative would not involve construction, so there would be no

construction impacts.

Irreversible Or Irretrievable Use Of Resources. Implementation of the Maglev

Deployment Program involves a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and

fiscal resources, including land, fossil fuel, construction materials, state and federal

monies, labor, wetlands, floodplains, mineral sources, historic sites, and others. While

these commitments are irretrievable, they are not unusual in the development of a large

transportation project that benefits a large public, and losses or expenditures would be

minimized or compensated through a variety of implementation and mitigation measures.

The Maglev system represents a safe, rapid, energy efficient, environmentally sound, and

convenient transportation technology. The benefits of the system are anticipated to
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 23

justify and outweigh the commitment of the resources used for its construction and

operation.

Local Short-Term Uses Of The Environment And Enhancement Of Long-Term

Productivity. The environmental impacts associated with the Maglev Deployment

Program would result in both short and long-term impacts. Potential short-term

construction effects, including localized noise, air and water pollution, would be

minimized through standard environmental specifications and Best Management

Practices (BMPs), and would not have a lasting impact on the environment. Over the long

term, the Maglev system would serve as a viable alternative to existing, congested airway

and automotive corridors. Long-term socioeconomic and environmental benefits of the

Maglev system include regional economic development, transit-oriented development,

reduced air emissions, energy efficiency, and comparatively reduced consumption of

non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels. The Maglev initiative is an advanced

transportation technology that would contribute considerably to the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity nationwide.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

ES - 24

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 1

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The National National Policy Act (NEPA) establishes policies and procedures that ensure

environmental information is available to decision makers, regulatory agencies, and the

public before Federal actions are implemented. To satisfy NEPA requirements for the

Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program (Maglev

Deployment Program), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Lead Agency for this

Program, determined that the Program constitutes a major Federal action under NEPA.

As such, the FRA prepared and distributed a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (DPEIS) to encourage public involvement and to address public concerns. In

response to the public correspondence, the FRA refined the DPEIS and prepared this the

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS is comprised of

two volumes. Volume I is the DPEIS as refined by the FRA based on public comments.

Volume II contains the public comments and the FRA’s specific responses to those

comments.

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), part of the

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) of the Department of

Transportation (DOT), has provided technical support to the FRA in the preparation of

this document. This PEIS addresses the consequences of the proposed action on the

human and natural environments, suggests potential mitigation of adverse impacts, and

analyzes the no-action alternative to the proposed action. This PEIS has been prepared in

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500

et seq.), NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.), and FRA’s Procedures for Considering

Environmental Impacts, (64 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 26, 1999).

The CEQ Regulations encourage federal agencies to tier their environmental impact

statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the

actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (40 CFR §1502.20).

The PEIS will be used by the FRA decision makers to assist the agency in making certain

program level decisions about the Maglev Deployment Program. FRA will prepare

additional site specific environmental analyses before a particular project is constructed.

The PEIS is not intended to be a scientific document, but is written in plain language as a

decision tool supported by scientific analysis. The FRA will use the PEIS to make an

informed decision and to fully understand the environmental ramifications of the

decision. Detailed scientific studies used to support the PEIS are incorporated by

reference and are summarized in the document. The CEQ Regulations provide that

NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in

question, rather than amassing needless detail (40 CFR. §1500.1(b)). The depth and

length of the analysis should be commensurate with the importance of the issues

involved.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 2

1.2 INTRODUCTION

As authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA

21) (Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 216), the Maglev Deployment Program

encourages the development and construction of an operating transportation system

employing magnetic levitation, capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of

386 kilometers/hour (km/h) (240 miles/hour (mph)). Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an

advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a

vehicle over a specially designed guideway. Utilizing state-of-the-art electric power and

control systems, this configuration eliminates contact between vehicle and guideway, and

is expected to permit cruising speeds of up to 500 km/h (310 mph), which would be twice

the speed capabilityof Acela.

TEA 21 added a new section 322 to title 23 of the United States Code. Section 322

provides a total of $55 million in contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund for

Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001 for pre-construction planning of transportation systems

employing Maglev. Section 322 requires FRA to establish project selection criteria, to

solicit applications for funding, to select one or more projects to receive financial

assistance for preconstruction planning activities and after completion of such activities,

to select one of the projects to receive financial assistance for final design, engineering,

and construction activities. Section 322 authorizes but does not appropriate additional

federal funds of $950 million for final design and construction of the most promising

project. Section 322 also provides that the portion of the project not covered by funds

provided under Section 322 may be covered by any non-federal funding sources,

including private debt and/or equity, state, local, regional, and other public or private

entities, as well as by federally provided Surface Transportation Program (STP), and

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds, and from

other forms of financial assistance under TEA 21, such as loans and loan guarantees.

The FRA established the rules governing the Maglev Deployment Program through a

final rule published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2342). The final

rule provides for a five phase process: Phase I involves a competition for planning grants;

Phase II includes project description development; Phase III includes the project selection

process; Phase IV involves project development and completion of a site specific

environmental impact statement; and Phase V involves the completion of detailed

engineering and construction, and the financing, construction, and operation of the

project in revenue service. As directed by the enabling legislation, the FRA has initiated

a competition to select a project for the purpose of demonstrating the use of maglev

technology to the American public. After receiving and evaluating eleven initial

applications, the Secretary of Transportation on May 24, 1999 announced financial

assistance grants to seven participants (California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland,

Nevada, and Pennsylvania) for pre-construction planning for Maglev high-speed ground

transportation (HSGT). FRA entered into cooperative agreements with each of the

selected states. These agreements required each participating state or authority to prepare

and submit to the FRA a technical review of environmental considerations affecting their

proposed project. The participants incorporated the results of these technical reviews into
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 3

individual documents referred to as Environmental Assessments (EAs). The purpose of

these technical documents was to provide the baseline environmental data to be used by

FRA in the preparation of the DPEIS (for further information on the Environmental

Assessments refer to Appendix A for each state participants’ point of contact). These

documents were analyzed and synthesized by the FRA in the DPEIS. After completing

the PEIS, FRA will administer a selection process to pick a project for authorized

construction funding. FRA will prepare a project-specific environmental impact

statement for any Maglev system proposed for construction.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

The mission of the FRA is to promote safe, environmentally sound, successful railroad

transportation to meet current and future needs of the Nation. FRA encourages

investment in infrastructure and technology to enable rail to realize its full potential. The

Maglev Deployment Program is a program that was established by Congress and directed

to the FRA for implementation. The purpose of the Maglev Deployment Program is to

identify a viable maglev project in the U.S., and assist a public/private partnership

organized for the purpose to plan, finance, construct and operate the identified project.

The program is intended to demonstrate that Maglev technology can be successfully

deployed as one of the next generation of America’s high-speed ground transportation.

The deployment of an operating transportation system employing magnetic levitation

would demonstrate that Maglev technology could play a role in helping to address several

of the main problems associated with inter and intra-regional transportation in the United

States (FRA, 1993). Continued economic and population (resident and visitor) growth in

major metropolitan areas around the country will result in increased demand for capacity

(mobility), greater operational congestion (time-delays), and increased safety deficiencies

of transportation systems. The development of Maglev would provide an alternative

transportation option to federal, state, and local transportation decision makers who are

seeking to alleviate congestion in airway and automotive corridors that results from

increasing travel demand. Maglev systems could also extend the usefulness of existing

airport and highway infrastructure (FRA, 1997). Associated benefits would include

increased productivity of business travelers, regional economic development partly as a

result of joint development at stations, support to comprehensive land use planning based

on transit-oriented development to address urban sprawl, reduced emissions resulting in

enhanced air quality, and reduced consumption of non-renewable resources. The high

performance of Maglev transportation systems would provide air-competitive trip times

at longer trip distances than other HSGT alternatives. In addition, Maglev technology

would potentially maximize the utilization of airports’ potential as centers for inter-modal

transfer and travel by providing inter-modal connections between airports and business

districts. By providing a high-speed link connecting two or more airports serving a single

region, additional air travel demand can be shifted to under-used airports with additional

capacity instead of requiring the expansion of existing airports.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 4

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public and regulatory agency involvement is critical to the success of the Maglev

Deployment Program, particularly with regard to NEPA. Since the enactment of TEA-21

in June 1998, FRA has pursued a number of paths for informing and involving the public

in the Maglev Deployment Program. On July 23, 1998, FRA, in cooperation with the

High-Speed Ground Transportation Association and Amtrak, held an all day meeting in

Washington, D.C. to explain the TEA 21 rail-related programs including explanation of

the Maglev Deployment Program. Other meetings to inform the public and solicit

concerns on the program were held in Dallas, Harrisburg, Los Angeles, and New Orleans.

A pre-application meeting for prospective participants for pre-construction planning

grants for the Maglev Deployment Program was held on November 4, 1998 at the Federal

Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. In attendance

were 49 interested parties. The meeting consisted of a series of presentations by FRA

and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) officials interspersed with questions from the

audience that were informally answered by FRA staff. The questions that were raised by

the audience and written questions submitted previously, provided the basis for a more

complete presentation of questions and answers regarding the administration of the

Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program. The material that

was prepared by FRA was included in the Docket, mailed to all attendees and was

electronically posted on the FRA website.

The Maglev Deployment Program cooperative agreements between FRA and the seven

selected state participants require each state to develop and implement a comprehensive

public involvement program during the planning and design stages. Each state has

initiated public and regulatory agency involvement programs that included local

meetings, websites, fact sheets, and informational brochures. These programs are

summarized in each state’s Environmental Assessment. Additional information on these

activities can be obtained by contacting the state Maglev Alternative representative

identified in Appendix A, assessing available alternative internet sites, and by reviewing

the state’s EA.

FRA published a Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS in the Federal Register on December

29, 1999 (see Appendix E). The notice solicited public and agency input into the

development of the scope of the PEIS, and advised the public that outreach activities

conducted by the program participants would be considered in the preparation of the

PEIS. Furthermore, FRA established a Maglev Deployment Program website.

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/maglev.htm) on the agency's Internet site where the public

could obtain additional information related to the Maglev Deployment Program.

The FRA received several direct repsonses to the Notice of Intent and the state EA’s that

identified issues to be addressed in the PEIS (see Appendix J). In addition, each of the

state EA’s also identified issues of concern used in establishing the scope of the DPEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 5

With the approval of the DPEIS by the FRA Administrator on June 29, 2000 and its

public release, FRA published an accompanying Internet website at

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/s/env/MagPEIS.htm) that made the document available for

download. The DPEIS (see the Appendix in the PEIS Volume II) was sent to major

stakeholders, identified by the states, for review and comment. In addition, copies were

sent to libraries located within the area that would be served by each of the alternatives.

An official comment period commenced following the issuance of the DPEIS, and closed

on September 19, 2000

All written comments on the DPEIS were placed in the Department of Transportation’s

electronic Docket Management System. This system makes electronic submission and

viewing of comments and other submissions, using the docket number “7472,” available

on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov/. Comments on the DPEIS and FRA responses to

appropriate concerns can be found in Volume II of this PEIS.

After the DPEIS was released for public comment, public information meetings were

held in the vicinity of each of the seven Maglev Program proposals during August 2000.

These meetings provided information to the affected public about the PEIS and the

Maglev program and provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the DPEIS.

Locations and dates of the public information meetings were posted on FRA’s website,

advertised locally, and made available by the participants listed in Appendix A. In

addition to the public information meetings, FRA held a public hearing on the DPEIS in

Washington, D.C. on August 24, 2000 which provided interested parties an opportunity

to make oral presentations. The transcript of the public hearing is included in Volume II

of this PEIS. The distribution list of the PEIS (see Appendix F) includes the list

presented in the DPEIS plus attendees at the public meetings and public hearing, and

those individuals who provided a mailing address in the comments to the Document

Management System.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 6

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 1

2 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND

Transportation between cities in the United States is essential to the economy and vitality

of the nation. Travel demand is growing and intercity transportation by air and auto

continue to suffer from congestion and delay. This condition is particularly evident

within large metropolitan areas, surrounding airports, and during weekends, holiday and

bad-weather periods. Domestic intercity air traffic has outpaced the growth in airport

capacity. “The FAA considers High-Speed Ground Transport (HSGT) to be a potential

means of relieving the pressure on short haul traffic by diverting air trips of 800

kilometers (500 miles) or less” (FAA, 1994). Our ability to construct additional highway

capacity (i.e., additional lanes) is proving difficult in a number of locations across the

country. In light of concerns about dependence on petroleum based vehicles, there is

particular interest in non-petroleum powered intercity HSGT systems that have the

capability to provide immediate access to airports with stations inside air passenger

terminals.

FRA has been evaluating rail and maglev related HSGT systems that could satisfy cityto-city transport for a number of years. Below are some examples of related reports:

Report to Congress, Assessment of the Potential for Magnetic Levitation

Transportation Systems in the United States, Moving America, New

Directions, New Opportunities (DOT, 1990).

MAGLEV 93: 13th International Conference on Magnetically Levitated

Systems and Linear Drives (ANL, 1993).

Maglev Vehicles and Superconducting Technology Integration of High

Speed Ground Transportation into the Air Travel System (ANL, 1989).

Benefits of Magnetically Levitated High Speed Transportation for the

United States, Volume 1 Executive Report (Grumman 1989).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Ways: Tiltrotor

Aircraft & Magnetically Levitated Vehicles (OTA 1991).

High-Speed Ground Transportation for America (DOT 1997).

Systems that FRA has evaluated include:

§ Accelerated Rail Service (Accelerail).

§ New High-Speed Rail (HSR) Systems.

§ Magnetic Levitation (Maglev).

Accelerail. Accelerail consists of upgrading intercity rail passenger service on existing

railroad corridors. Most of these options share existing rights-of-way (ROW) with the

freight railroad owners of the corridors. These options have top speeds of 145 to 241
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 2

km/h (90 to 150 mph). The higher speed systems comprise both electrified and nonelectrified motive power. In the electric systems, the power is usually obtained from

overhead catenary wires. One Accelerail example is the Empire Regional service

between New York City and Albany, NY. Accelerail success often depends on the

ability of the passenger service providers to secure the cooperation of freight line owners.

New High-Speed Rail. New HSR Systems represent the advanced steel-wheel-on-rail

passenger systems that operate on almost completely new rights-of-way. These systems

use a combination of electric power and other advanced components. HSR systems that

have been developed in Japan, France, and Germany obtain practical operating speeds of

approximately 300 km/h (186 mph). Japan has claim to the first HSR, the Shinkansen (or

bullet train). France has the Train ‘a Grande Vitesse referred to as TGV, and Germany

has its Intercity Express (ICE). Unlike Accelerail, the HSR option utilizes exclusively

built rail corridors. Because of high top speeds, the cost of maintaining and operating

HSR systems is higher than Accelerail.

Maglev. Magnetic levitation (Maglev) uses magnetic forces to lift, propel, and guide the

train over a special guideway. The power to propel the train is provided in the guideway.

Maglev does not require wheels or other mechanical parts at higher speeds for support or

propulsion. Without wheels or other components to cause resistance, cruising speeds up

to 500 km/h (310 mph) are practical. This speed would allow Maglev to achieve aircompetitive trip times at longer trip distances than other HSGT options (FRA, 1997).

Over the past three decades, research and development programs in maglev technology

have been conducted by several countries including: United States, Great Britain,

Canada, Germany, and Japan. Germany and Japan have the most experience with

demonstrated Maglev technology. Maglev requires its own guideway that can be

elevated or placed in tunnels, thus generally avoiding the safety concerns of grade

crossings and access to the tracks which exist for Accelerail systems.

FRA has identified a number of factors that are relevant to transportation planners in

deciding which type of HSGT will satisfy the transportation needs of particular corridors.

These include:

§ Faster Trip Times.

§ High Reliability During Peak Demand.

§ Convenience.

§ Shared Corridors.

§ High Capacity.

§ Safety.

§ Petroleum Independence.

Faster Trip Times. This feature is one of the most desirable characteristics to attract

passengers. To be competitive with airplanes, high peak speed and high

acceleration/braking are necessary. Cruising speeds of approximately 400 to 500 km/h

(250 to 310 mph) and higher are preferable (FRA, 1993) for trips of about 483 km (300

mi).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 3

High Reliability During Peak Demand. Reliability of service is critical to satisfy

consumer demand. Achieving closer headways with precise schedule reliability results in

travel time savngs from connection and transfer times of a few minutes rather than the

more common half-hour or more with existing transportation systems.

Convenience. The ability to provide frequent service to central business districts,

airports, and other major metropolitan area travel nodes is necessary to provide a valuable

service that satisfies customers. The success of any intercity passenger transport service

depends upon its ability to attract customers with convenient service.

Shared Corridors. Co-locating guideway or track with existing utility or transportation

corridors reduces costs, requires less land, and minizes impacts. Using existing track or

right-of-way could be a disadvantage to maintaining higher speeds as grade crossings and

other constraints are encountered. If the proposed technology could use the existing

corridor effectively, costs can be reduced. Freight and other operations should not be

disturbed when sharing common facilities. Gaining the cooperation of owners and users

of existing corridors is desirable and depends on the degree of disruption caused by the

proposed system.

High Capacity. Sufficient capacity must be provided to accommodate fluctuations

experienced during travel demand peaks and traffic growth well into the twenty-first

century. Headways of as little as several minutes would be necessary during periods of –

peak travel to provide high capacity.

Safety. The proposed system must have acceptable safety characteristics. Grade

crossings and inappropriate pedestrian access to tracks are safety concerns at higher

speeds. A design that minimizes grade crossings and track access can substantially

reduce this critical safety concern.

Petroleum Independence. Air and auto modes of travel require petroleum for power.

With supplies of non-renewable energy resources subject to depletion and disruption, the

ability to use varied power sources is a significant advantage. In addition, the use of

more efficient and renewable modes of power generation that reduce air emissions is

desirable for environmental quality and sustainablity.

Maglev systems appear to meet all of these factors. Maglev systems can achieve speeds

of over 402 km/h (250 mph) on regularly scheduled service and satisfy the criterion for

speed. Maglev can achieve very close headways between trains and provide the needed

capacity during peak travel periods and into the future, thus satisfying the criteria for

reliability, convenience, and high capacity. Maglev would require its own separate

guideway. However, it would be elevated or grade separated and can be co-located with

utility corridors and some existing transportation corridors satisfying the shared corridor

criterion. With integral system safety controls and a grade-separated guideway, there are

no at-grade crossings and the safety criterion is satisfied. Maglev uses electric power to

operate, thus the criterion for petroleum independence is achieved.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 4

2.2 MAGLEV ALTERNATIVES

In 1998, Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L.

No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107). This comprehensive piece of transportation legislation

focuses on highways, transit, railroads and inter-modal transportation planning and

development. Focusing on future transportation solutions, Congress created the Maglev

Transportation Technology Deployment Program to provide an opportunity for the

Department working with the private sector to evaluate and demonstrate the feasibility of

a new technology with the potential to address some of the nation’s most pressing

transportation needs. The Program is unusual in that it was established to achieve two

separate goals: demonstrating the feasibility of an entirely new transportation technology

while at the same time addressing the transportation needs of a particular area of the

country.

In establishing the Program, Congress required the Secretary to establish project selection

criteria prior to soliciting applications for financial assistance. The Secretary has done so

in an interim final rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 Fed.

Reg. 54600) and a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2000 (65

Fed. Reg. 2342). The statute requires the project selection criteria to include among other

things the extent to which a project is nationally significant, including the extent to which

the project will demonstrate the feasibility of deployment of Maglev technology

throughout the United States, and the extent to which timely implementation of the

project will reduce congestion in other modes of transportation and reduce the need for

additional highway or airport construction. Additional selection criteria include the

extent to which the project will augment Maglev networks identified as having

partnership potential, and the extent to which financial assistance would foster public and

private partnerships for infrastructure development and attract private debt or equity. The

clear statutory goal is for the program not only to solve a particular transportation need

but to do so in a way that establishes the feasibility of the technology over the long-run.

The statute does not authorize the agency to use the funding provided for the Maglev

Deployment Program to pursue other non-Maglev technologies, including either

accelerail or high-speed rail options and these other technologies would not address the

primary purpose of the program which is to demonstrate the feasibility of Maglev in

addressing certain identified transportation needs.

In preparing this PEIS, FRA has evaluated two basic alternatives: the Build Alternative

in which the Secretary would select from the seven proposed Maglev Deployment

alternatives for the final design and construction phases, and the No-Action Alternative in

which transportation problems would continue to grow and actions to address those

problems would be taken outside the Maglev Deployment Program. Within the Build

Alternative are seven sub-alternatives reflecting the seven applications for financial

assistance in the program: California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada,

and Pennsylvania. FRA evaluated the environmental impacts associated with a decision

on whether to proceed with a Maglev Deployment Program and a comparison of

environmental impacts associated with each of the seven alternative locations at a level of

detail appropriate for the programmatic decisions being made at this stage.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 5

2.2.1 Initial Maglev Alternatives

Initially, FRA began the process of assessing Maglev Alternatives in 1998 by soliciting

proposals for financial assistance for pre-construction planning activities including the

consideration of environmental concerns. The one critical technical criterion that was

established was that each applicant’s proposed Maglev Program is to be a segment or

segments of a high-speed ground transportation corridor. Thus, each proposal is for a

segment or segments of a longer designated corridor that could be considered for future

Maglev deployment. There were no other geographical or technical restrictions on

considering Maglev alternatives. FRA received eleven Maglev Alternative projects for

consideration.

2.2.2 Initial Maglev Alternative Screening

A committee appointed by the FRA Administrator evaluated each application to

determine whether the proposed project would likely meet specified Project Elegibility

Standards. Applications were also assessed to determine if, upon completion of the

planning process, they would likely lead to a project that can be financed, built, and

operated by a public/private partnership. On May 24, 1999, the Secretary of the

Department of Transportation selected seven of the eleven Maglev Alternative Projects as

participants in the Maglev Development Program. The seven Alternatives, located in

California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, are the

Action alternatives identified for further analysis in this PEIS as described in Section 2.4.

During this initial phase of the competition, each participant is to prepare project

descriptions, supporting pre-construction planning reports, and environmental

documentation EAs. This pre-construction documentation phase is expected to continue

through 2001. Based on the information in the Environmental Assessments, each

participant chose one of two alternative Maglev technologies. Six states chose the

Transrapid International TR08 system, while Florida chose Maglev 2000 technology.

Both of these technologies are described in Section 2.3 Alternative Maglev Technologies.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE MAGLEV TECHNOLOGIES

Maglev is a transportation technology in which vehicles travel safely at speeds of 400

km/h to 500 km/h (250 to 310 mph) or higher while suspended, guided, and propelled

above a guideway using common magnetic forces. The guideway is the physical

structure along which maglev vehicles are levitated, guided, and propelled. The

guideway can be installed elevated or at-grade heights and supported by conventional

concrete or steel columns.

Two Americans, Robert Goddard and Emile Bachelet first identified the concept of

magnetically levitated trains at the turn of the 20th century. By the 1930s, Germany's

Hermann Kemper was developing a concept and demonstrating the use of magnetic fields

to combine the advantages of trains and airplanes. In 1968, Americans James Powell and

Gordon Danby were granted a patent on their design for a magnetic levitation train. Over

the past three decades, extensive alternative Maglev technology research and

development programs have been conducted by several countries including: the United

States, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan. Germany and Japan have the most
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 6

experience with demonstrating Maglev technology; both have test tracks and have

achieved extensive testing of their concepts and vehicles. However, only the German

Transrapid International (TRI) Maglev technology system alternative is ready for

commercial passenger service at high speeds. The public can pay to ride the test system,

and it is part of the World Exposition (Expo 2000) centered in Hanover, Germany from

June 1 to October 30, 2000. With continued ongoing development on American Maglev

technology, Maglev 2000 service is imminent.

Six of the seven states under consideration for the Maglev Deployment Program

competition are proposing to use the TRI system. Florida is the only state that is

proposing to use a different concept of Maglev technology. Although the Florida

technology, referred to as Maglev 2000, is similar to the TRI system it has unique

technical differences. These two alternative Maglev technologies are summarized below.

2.3.1 Transrapid International Maglev System

The Transrapid Maglev System has been demonstrated and tested at the Transrapid Test

Facility in Emslan, Germany (TVE) for more than 15 years and a total mileage of

approximately 700,000 km (434,959.9 mi) has been achieved. With an improved

operation control system, an extended propulsion system (two substations), a variety of

guideway types, and the 3-section pre-series vehicle TR08 replacing the 2-section

prototype vehicle TR07, the TVE represents the state-of-the-art of the Transrapid

International Maglev System. The German Federal Railroad Authority (Eisenbahn

Bundesamt) has already approved most of the maglev-specific components Although

some measurements still need to be completed, the new components (such as the TR08

vehicle) were desigend to have better performance qualities than the version they

replaced. Significant differences in measured information/data are therefore not

expected. For the site-specific EIS work, the most recent technical information/data will

obviously need to be utilized. Figure 2.3-1 depicts the three primary functions typical to

the TRI Maglev technology: (1) levitation or suspension; (2) propulsion; and (3)

guidance. In most current designs, magnetic forces are used to perform all three

functions.

Suspension and Guidance Systems. The TRI Maglev train carriage system wraps

around the guideway to securely hold and guide the vehicle. There is a very slight space,

about 1 cm (0.4 in), between the carriage system and the guideway to allow levitation and

minor lateral movement. The vehicle is supported and guided by the principle of

electromagnetism. Attractive forces between electromagnets located in the Maglev

carriage system that surrounds the guideway and the stator packs installed on the

underside of the guideway allows the vehicle to levitate. The TRI vehicle can levitate

about 1 cm (0.4 in) above the guideway. Other magnets on the interior sides of the

carriage hold the vehicle laterally in place. Figure 2.3-2 show the details of the support

and guidance systems.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 7

Source: Transrapid International (TRI)

Figure 2.3-1 - Transrapid Maglev Components

Source: Transrapid International (TRI)

Figure 2.3-2 - Transrapid Support and Guidance Systems

Propulsion Systems. Maglev propulsion uses the same electrical principle that causes an

electrical motor to spin. Electricity is introduced into the windings of the motor causing

the interior of the motor to spin. Instead of the rotating magnetic field in the motor,

Maglev places the electric motor’s components horizontally to produce a traveling

magnetic field along the guideway. Unlike conventional rail systems the vehicle’s

propulsion is provided in the guideway. For Maglev propulsion, the center part of the

motor is stretched horizontally in the bottom of the vehicle’s carriage while the outer wire
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 8

wrappings of the motor are placed horizontally on the underside of the guideway. As an

electrical current is placed over the wires an electromagnetic field is produced and the

resulting horizontal force pulls the vehicle along the guideway. Adjusting the frequency

of the three-phase current can alter the speed of the vehicle. If the direction of the

traveling field is reversed, the propulsion system changes into a generator. Thus, braking

the vehicle without the typical friction contact of orthodox brakes. Figure 2.3-3 shows a

simplified concept of how the electrical motor concept is applied to Maglev.

Source: Transrapid International (TRI)

Figure 2.3-3 - Transrapid Propulsion

Guideway. The guideway is usually a continuous “T” shape that can be elevated on

typical bridge style columns, mounted at grade on a continuous foundation, or using other

configurations. The guideway beam structure can be fabricated from steel or concrete.

Typically, the bottom of the “T” is hollow. To change tracks a unique steel guideway

crossover section is used. The steel guideway crossover is held stationary at one end and

the other end is elastically bent (taking seconds) to reroute the Maglev to another track.

Positive locking devices are used to secure the steel track into the desired position. There

are no restraints to the height of the guideway, so elevating the guideway results in the

obvious added benefit of no at-grade crossings (see Figure 2.3-4).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 9

Train. Vehicle interior design is left to the operator’s desire. For example four across

first-class seating could be installed along with six across second-class passenger seating.

Interior carpeting, overhead storage and other amenities are easily installed. The trains

are built with two or more consists. Each train consist is independently constructed and

cannot be “piggy-backed” once constructed. Seating capacity depends on consist length

and can be approximately 240, 340 and 440 seats, respectively, for the 3-, 4- and 5-

section Transrapid vehicles. Vehicle lengths are 78.8 m (258.5 ft), 103.5 m (339.5 ft),

and 128.3 m (420.9 ft), respectively. A three section train weighs 189 metric tons

(416,674 lbs), when loaded. Longer consists are possible. Disabled seating space and

bathrooms are installed. Exterior colors and detail are at the operator’s discretion. Figure

2.3-5 shows a typical exterior profile and interior plan.

Source: Transrapid International (TRI)

Figure 2.3-4 - Transrapid Guideway

Control/Communication/Electric Substations. Maglev trains are controlled and

monitored from a central operations center and the system is fully automated. Although

the actual vehicle control is from the operations center, each train has an attendant. The

control center is responsible for all communications, information, control and operating

tasks for the entire system. Train information is through a redundant radio data

transmission along the guideway and mobile communications from within the vehicles.

In addition, data transmissions are also provided by means of fiber optic cables along the

base of the guideway support columns. Power to the Maglev system is supplied by

substations along the length of the track which are connected to the public grid via deadend feeders.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 10

 Source: Transrapid International (TRI)

Figure 2.3-5 - Transrapid Interior Plan

Stations/Maintenance Facility. In addition to the two end point stations, there could be

additional stations with park and ride facilities along the corridor. The stations would

resemble typical train stations. However, for safety considerations platforms would

likely have doors to keep waiting riders away from the guideway. A maintenance facility

for the system is planned where all vehicle servicing, maintenance and vehicle storage

will take place. Final location of the maintenance facility will be determined based on

site-specific final system design considerations.

Safety. Maglev design is inherently safe with the vehicles carriage wrapped around the

“T” shaped guideway. This design prevents inadvertent derailing of the vehicle. The

vehicle’s location is monitored by on-board and guideway sensors providing redundancy

if one should malfunction. In the event of a non-scheduled stop, the Maglev train will

automatically continue to one of the auxiliary stopping areas located along the route. At

the auxiliary stopping area passengers can depart the vehicle to a platform leading to the

ground. If the emergency requires immediate escape, an onboard evacuation chute or

tube is proposed. In addition to the operations center monitoring and controlling the

vehicle, an on-board attendant can assist in an emergency situation.

Additional information on the TRI Maglev can be found at www.transrapidinternational.de/english/home.html.

2.3.2 Maglev 2000 System

The Maglev 2000 (M-2000) technology incorporates the most recent refinements of the

magnetic levitation system originally invented in 1966 by Drs. Gordon Danby and James

Powell. The Danby/Powell system has proved to be operational by the Japanese National

Railroads that adopted the Danby/Powell system. Drs. Danby and Powell have continued

the refinement of their magnetic levitation system to match the unique transportation

conditions found in the United States, characterized by longer travel distances and lower
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 11

density of development, even in urban areas. In response to the need to achieve major

cost reductions, M2000 has developed two newly patented solutions: reduced-cost

guideways and high-speed switches. The following paragraphs explain the Maglev 2000

technology alternative (FRH, 2000).

Suspension and Guidance. Each M-2000 Maglev vehicle carries a set of lightweight,

strong superconducting magnets. As the vehicle moves along a linear guideway, its

magnets induce transient electrical currents in a sequence of discrete aluminum wire

loops positioned on the guideway. The strong magnetic repulsion forces between the

vehicle magnets and the induced currents underneath them levitate the vehicle 15 cm (6

in) above the guideway. The levitation is inherent and automatic as long as the vehicle

travels along the guideway at a speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) or above. At lower speeds,

the induced currents are too weak to levitate and auxiliary wheels support the vehicle. As

illustrated in Figure 2.3-6 not only is the moving M-2000 vehicle automatically and

inherently levitated with a large clearance above the guideway, it is also automatically

guided and stabilized.

 Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Figure 2.3-6 - M-2000 System

The figure-of-8 loop, shown in Figure 2.3-7 provides lateral stability, while the dipole

loop provides vertical lift and stability. These automatic guidance forces stabilize the

vehicle against vertical and lateral displacements, as well as pitch, yaw, and roll

movements. The guidance forces are so strong - over twice the weight of the vehicle at
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 12

their full value - that no conceivable external force can make the vehicle contact the

guideway. The vehicle, however, moves freely along the guideway without hindrance.

This ability to switch at high speed using electronic, non-mechanical switches to control

which line of guideway loops the vehicle will follow, enables M-2000 vehicles to bypass

stations at high speed if desired, without slowing down the vehicles on the main

guideway. As a result, the M-2000 system can have close station spacing to conveniently

serve dispersed metropolitan regions, while at the same time retaining high average speed

capability.

Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Figure 2.3-7 - M-2000 Null Flux Guideway

Propulsion Systems. The M-2000 Maglev System employs the linear synchronous

motor (LSM) propulsion system, in which a relatively-small alternating current (AC) in a

set of propulsion windings on the guideway interacts with the high field strength

superconducting magnets on the vehicle to produce a longitudinal thrust force that keeps

the vehicle moving. The basic principles of the superconducting LSM propulsion system,

which was invented by Powell and Danby in 1969, are illustrated in Figure 2.3-8.

Because of the high field strength of the superconducting magnets on the M-2000

vehicle, the magnetic thrust forces are very strong and can propel the vehicle at 483 km/h

(300 mph), even though there is a large physical clearance – i.e., 15.24 cm (6.0 in) –
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 13

between the superconducting magnets and the LSM windings on the guideway at any

given location on the guideway.

Thus, the vehicle magnets and AC LSM windings are always in phase, so that the

longitudinal thrust force is always in the same direction – i.e., in the direction of vehicle

motion. This synchronous type of operation is very important, since the LSM propulsion

system keeps all vehicles moving at a fixed speed regardless of variations in external

force. An individual vehicle can still maintain its fixed speed and distance of separation

from other vehicles, regardless of head or tail winds, or up or down grades not

experienced by the other vehicles. As illustrated in Figure 2.3-8, this fixed separation

distance will be a minimum of 10 km (6.2 mi), even at very high traffic loadings.

 Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Figure 2.3-8 - M-2000 Propulsion System

In the M-2000 LSM propulsion system, the whole guideway is not continuously

energized. This increases electrical efficiency, since the portions of the guideway that do

not have vehicles on them are not energized.

Guideway. The M-2000 vehicles operate on either a narrow-beam guideway or a planar

guideway, with the latter primarily used for switching to off-line stations, (see Figure 2.3-

9). The narrow-beam guideway is a single hollow reinforced concrete box-beam

structure to the sides of which are attached thin panels, 102 cm (40 in) in width, 7.6 cm (3
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 14

in) in depth, of polymer concrete in which are imbedded aluminum wire loops that act to

levitate, guide, and propel the M-2000 vehicle along the guideway. The particular loop

configurations used for the narrow-beam guideway, the figure of 8, the dipole, and the

LSM loop, are illustrated in Figures 2.3-7 and 2.3-8. The planar guideway uses the same

types of guideway loops, but the plane of the assembly is rotated by 90o (degrees) so that

the loops are oriented in a horizontal plane, instead of the vertical plane used for the

narrow-beam guideway. Based on fabrication experience with beam and guideway

prototypes, the total cost for the 2-way M-2000 guideway is projected to be $10 million

per mile.

 Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Figure 2.3-9 - M-2000 Guideway Loops

Train. The M-2000 vehicle is aerodynamically shaped so that it can move in either

direction along the guideway with the same aerodynamic and magnetic drag forces. The

M-2000 passenger vehicle is shown in Figure 2.3-10. It can carry 100 passengers and has

a total weight of 40 metric tons (88,000 lbs). All seating would be equivalent to firstclass airline seating, with 25 rows of 4 seats per row. The vehicles are designed to

operate as individual independent units on the guideway. For portions of the maglev

route where traffic loading is extremely heavy – e.g., greater than 12,000 passengers per

hour of 2-way traffic – the individual vehicles can be coupled together in 2 or 3 car sets

to further increase traffic capacity.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 14 15 16 17 25

Guideway

Guideway

Guideway Lavatory Lavatory

Seats Face

35.66m (117ft)

Seats Face

WC WC

Signal &

Control Units Signal &

Control Units

D o o r 6 D o o r 5

D o o r 2

D o o r 2

D o o r 4

D o o r 3

D o o r 3

D o o r 1

D o o r 1

Baggage Baggage

Front/Rear

Front/Rear Front/Rear

Wheelchair 

Position (WC)

8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Notes: Bi-directional vehicle, 3 doors each side. Overall length 35.66 (117 ft).

 Passenger exit from end doors and enter center doors.

 92 passengers accommodated in 23 rows of 2/2 first class seating.

 Seats face away from middle of car. Rows 2-12 face the front. Rows 13-24 face the rear.

 4 wheelchair stations –2 on each end of the vehicle, at rows 1 & 25.

 Enhanced capacity (A-320 style) overhead and under-seat baggage capacity.

 One accessible lavatory on each end of the car, but both on the same side of car.

 Overflow carry-on luggage space (strollers, etc.) on each end of car.

 Attendant seat, signal & control, communications compartments.

 Automatic (electric, “no hands”) couplers on each end of car.

Figure 2.3-10 - M-2000 Passenger Vehicle

The M-2000 guideway is designed for dual-use capability to carry both passengers and

freight transport vehicles. The freight vehicles can carry either containers or truck trailers

as illustrated in Figure 2.3-11.

Control/Communication/Electrical Substation. Movement of the M-2000 vehicles on

the Maglev system would be controlled by a central control facility and not by operators

on the individual vehicles. The central facility would have a real-time display of the

speed, location, and operational conditions of all vehicles traveling on the system,

together with real-time monitoring of the operating conditions at all points on the

guideway. This ability plus the ability to control the speed of the vehicles by the

alternating current frequency of the LSM power fed to the guideway, make the central

traffic facility able to ensure safe operation of the system.

A two-way communication link between the moving vehicles and the traffic control

facility would be maintained at all times. The vehicles would transmit in real time

detailed data on the operational “health” of the guideway and various sub-systems

including: guideway loop performance, the position and mechanical response of the

guideway structure, the temperature of the individual superconducting magnets, and their

current levels.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 16

Source: Maglev 2000, Inc.

Figure 2.3-11 - M-2000 Freight Vehicle

A 69 kv AC power line that runs alongside the Maglev guideway provides the electrical

power for the LSM propulsion system. At intervals of approximately 10 km (6 mi), stepdown transformers reduce the AC voltage to 6kv and rectify it to direct current (DC).

Between the step-down points, the DC is carried along the guideway by an aluminumconductor/polyethylene-insulated cable distribution line. Electronic silicon controlled

rectifier (SCR) switches then energize the local section the M-2000 vehicle is currently

traveling on, creating a chopped AC wave in the LSM winding that propels the vehicle.

Stations/Maintenance Facilities. The operations control center would be located at the

maintenance facility and will house state-of-the-art computers, closed-circuit TV,

communications and signaling equipment. The operations control center will monitor the

operational parameters of the entire Maglev system and its sub-systems, including the

guideway, vehicles and stations. The stations will resemble typical modern train stations.

Final location of the maintenance facility has not been determined and will be based on

site-specific final-system design considerations.

Safety. The M-2000 Maglev system is designed and engineered to maximize safety and

reliability through the use of design approaches that minimize risk, multiple redundant

components that eliminate the chances of single-point and common-mode failures, backup systems, and continuous, real-time monitoring of the operating health of the M-2000

guideway and vehicles.

The M-2000 guideways, both-narrow beam and planar, are elevated well above grade so

that access to the guideway is restricted. This minimizes the possibility of deliberate or
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 17

accidental damage to the guideway, and the emplacement of hazardous objects. All

portions of the guideway would be continuously monitored in real time by the central

traffic control facility, using both zoom video cameras mounted on poles and sensors to

detect when hazardous objects are present. In addition, every time a vehicle travels every

location of the guideway, its sensors will detect whether the local guideway loops are

functioning correctly or not. The central traffic control facility can then specify

corrective or maintenance actions to ensure safe operation.

The M-2000 vehicle body has been designed using high-strength composite materials to

minimize the possibility of and damage due to the potential collision of the vehicle with

external objects, both those on the guideway and airborne objects – e.g., tree branches in

a high wind situation. Even if levitation were to fail due to an event such as the collision

of the vehicle with an external object on the guideway, the M-2000 system is designed so

that the vehicle would come down safely on the guideway and slide to a controlled stop.

The M-2000 levitation and guidance system is designed to withstand extremely strong

external forces that act on the vehicle without causing it to contact the guideway. For

example, very strong crosswind gusts acting on a 483 km/h (300 mph) vehicle could

produce a lateral (sideways) force approaching 1 g. In fact, the guidance stability is so

strong that it would take an external force of well over 2 g to make the vehicle contact the

guideway – a much larger force than ever could occur in actual operation.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

The build alternative includes seven location alternatives as follows:

California: A 133 km (83 mi) system connecting Los Angeles International Airport

(LAX) to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles (LA) to Ontario International Airport

(ONT) and further east into Riverside County. The Southern California Association of

Governments (SCAG) chose TRI Maglev technology for their operating system. The

California website is htttp://www.calmaglev.org

Florida: A 29 km (18 mi) project linking Port Canaveral to the Space Center and the

Titusville Regional Airport. The State Department of Transportation chose Maglev 2000

technology for their operating system. No website listed at this time.

Georgia: A 50 km (31 mi) project linking Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and

Kennesaw in Cobb County chose TRI Maglev technology for their operating system. The

Georgia website is http://www.acmaglev.com

Louisiana: A 78 km (48 mi) project linking New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal to

the airport and across Lake Ponchartrain to the fast-growing northern suburbs. The

Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission chose TRI Maglev technology for their

operating system. The Louisiana website is http://www.gulfcoastmaglev.com

Maryland: A 64 km (40 mi) project linking downtown Baltimore and BaltimoreWashington International Airport (BWI) to Union Station in Washington, D.C. The

Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) chose TRI Maglev technology for their

operating system. The Maryland website is http://www.bwmaglev.com
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 18

Nevada: A 56 km (47 mi) project linking Las Vegas to Primm, Nevada. The CaliforniaNevada Super Speed Train Commission chose TRI Maglev technology for their operating

system. The Nevada website is http://www.ci.las-vegas.nv.us/super_speed_train.htm

Pennsylvania: A 76 km (47 mi) project linking Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) to

Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs. The Port Authority of Allegheny County chose TRI

Maglev technology for their operating system. The Pennsylvania website is

Http://www.maglevpa.com

The following sections contain a brief description of the seven build alternatives and the

No-Action Alternative that are analyzed in this PEIS. For further information on each of

the alternatives, or a copy of the State’s Environmental Assessment, Appendix A

identifies the contact person.

Within each of the alternatives, several routes were analyzed for their technical,

economic and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance

facility locations were considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each location will

undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects an alternative for

detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental review will be

required. This review will assure public input and that site specific environmental

conditions will be considered. Preliminary routes are shown in Figures in each section.

Each of the preliminary routes and station/maintenance locations is discussed in further

detail in the supporting Environmental Assessment (copies can be obtained by contacting

the individuals identified in Appendix A).

2.4.1 California

The Community Link21 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) published by the

SCAG identifies a broad cross-section of various modes of transportation projects to be

implemented between 1996 and 2020. Included with the highway, transit, and commuter

rail projects, SCAG has identified high-speed rail as a viable transportation program for

the region. Through RTP, SCAG is proposing an Intra-Regional Maglev System (CM,

2000) that will connect major regional activity centers and significant multi-modal

transportation facilities in Los Angles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties

(see Figure 2.4-1). The three local sponsors of the project are California Business,

Transportation and Housing Agency, California High-Speed Rail Authority, and

Southern California Association of Governments.

The California Maglev Alternative extends between LAX through Union Station in

downtown Los Angeles and through ONT to March Air Reserve Base (March Field), a

distance of approximately 133 km (83 mi). The area is mostly developed and substantial

growth is expected in both population and employment between 1994 and 2020. The

California Alernative is planned to be a part of and compatible with, the larger north

south high-speed rail system proposed to serve the entire state. If selected for

construction under the Maglev Deployment Program, SCAG envisions the system to be

in operation by 2010. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in Figure 2.4-2.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 19

A future expanded system would connect to the San Diego region and could be part of, or

serve as a collection system for the state’s proposed high-speed rail system extending to

northern California. It would also provide for future corridor expansion into the high

desert portions of Los Angles and San Bernardino counties.

The California Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev

technology. The proponents of this alternative do not have a website established at the

time of this printing.

 Source: SCAG

Figure 2.4-1 - California Alternative – Locus Map
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 20

Source: SCAG

Figure 2.4-2 - California Alternative – Proposed Routes

2.4.2 Florida

Transportation problems that currently exist, and are projected to exist in the near future,

within the Florida alternative study area, centered on the movement of visitors to

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and passengers at Port Canaveral. Currently, the KSC

Visitors Center attracts approximately 2.8 million visitors per year and 1.5 million cruise

passengers embark from Port Canaveral annually. Each of these destinations is

connected to the mainland by a narrow road causeway and each has a rapidly-growing

number of visitors/passengers.

As part of a future statewide Maglev system, the Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT) performed a statewide trade study to determine the best location for a regional

transportation system (see Figure 2.4-3). As a result, a route connecting the Space Coast

Regional Airport (SCRA), the KSC, and Port Canaveral was identified to yield one of the

highest ridership and operating revenues within the State. FDOT along with Maglev

2000 of Florida Corporation is proposing an initial corridor of 32 km (20 mi) long for the

Maglev Deployment Program (FDOT, 2000). If this initial corridor is successful, a

planned future extension could be in the direction of the Beeline Expressway connecting

to Orlando International Airport and points west.

Located in central Brevard County on the east coast of Florida, the proposed study area is

generally bounded by Port Canaveral to the southeast, the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) Parkway West to the north, the SCRA to the northwest

and SR 528 (Beeline Expressway) at the I-95 to the southwest. The project study area

includes the municipal jurisdictions of Brevard County, the City of Titusville, the City of
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 21

Merritt Island, the City of Cape Canaveral, Port Canaveral, and KSC. The Indian River

Lagoon and the Banana River are the two major water bodies found within the project

study areas.

Within the corridor, several alternative routes were analyzed for their technical, economic

and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance facility

locations were also considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each alternative

location will undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects this

alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental

review will be required. This review will assure public input and that site-specific

environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in

Figure 2.4-4. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and station/maintenance

locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting Environmental

Assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the individuals identified in

Appendix A).

The Florida Alternative is proposing to develop and use the M-2000 technology. FDOT

along with Maglev 2000 of Florida Corporation do not have a website established at the

time of this printing.

 Source: FDOT

Figure 2.4-3 - Florida Alternative – Locus Map
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 22

Source: FDOT

Figure 2.4-4 - Florida Alternative – Proposed Routes

2.4.3 Georgia

Atlanta is facing ever-increasing ground- and air-traffic congestion, with associated

reduction in mobility and economic opportunity. The current traffic volumes on I-75

greatly exceed the capacity of the facility in some areas and create long delays and unsafe

operating conditions for several hours of each day. The high growth estimates along the

I-75 corridor represent expectations for a loss in mobility for the region's residents,

businesses and visitors unless significant improvements and expansion to the travel

alternatives are completed consistent with the growth. The Hartsfield Atlanta

International Airport is officially recognized today as the busiest airport in the world

based on its 73.5 million passengers in 1998. Projections of up to 121 million passengers

in 2015 have led the City of Atlanta and the Airport Authority to embark upon a ten-year,

$5.4 billion expansion plan to meet these demands. Even so, the indications are that the

current plans will not entirely meet the increases expected in airline travel in the next 25

years and beyond.

The States of Georgia and Tennessee have joined in partnership to study and implement a

high-speed ground transportation system that could eventually serve the 177 km (110 mi)

coridor connecting the major airports for the cities of Atlanta and Chattanooga (see

Figure 2.4-5). To be successful as an alternative to automobile and air travel within the

corridor, the system must provide a relatively economical trip that is both convenient and

time efficient. Geography and urban development limit the opportunities for

conventional transportation modes to serve this need.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 23

The Atlanta Maglev Project is being administered under a tri-party agreement (ARC,

2000). The Atlanta Regional Commission has responsibility for project administration,

the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority will be the implementing authority, and

the Georgia Department of Transportation assists in a number of roles from planning to

financial support. This tri-party group is proposing an initial corridor between HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport to a multi-modal station located approximately 51 km (32

mi) north of the airport terminal. The exact location of the end stations will be

determined by consideration of many factors. The study corridor is primarily

characterized by urban and suburban development with some medium, high, and very

high densities of commercial, office, and residential areas.

Source: Atlanta Regional Commission

Figure 2.4-5 - Georgia Alternative – Locus Map

If FRA selects this alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a sitespecific environmental review will be required. This review will assure public input and

that site-specific environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 24

alternatives are shown in Figure 2.4-6. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and

station/maintenance locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting

Environmental Assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the

individuals identified in Appendix A).

The Georgia Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev technology.

The Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and the

Georgia Department of Transportation have established the following website where

additional information can be obtained on this alternative: www.acmaglev.com.

Source: Atlanta Regional Commission

Figure 2.4-6 - Georgia Alternative – Proposed Routes
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 25

2.4.4 Louisiana

The New Orleans area contains the most highly congested segment of I-10 in the nation.

Despite a proposed widening of I-10 to eight- to ten-lanes, the maximum feasible buildout of this facility, the level-of-service (LOS) on this highway is expected to be less than

optimum during the peak hours for a large share of the next twenty years. Furthermore,

the Causeway across Lake Pontchartrain has existing Average Daily Traffic of nearly

29,000 vehicles. Traffic projections developed in conjunction with ridership estimation

for this project indicate that year 2020 volumes will approach 70,000 vehicles per day.

Peak-hour traffic volumes currently exceed the capacity of both the north and southern

approaches to the bridge. Accidents on the Causeway can delay traffic for hours, with no

alternative route. A study of the role of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in hurricane

evacuation of the New Orleans region identified the need for additional capacity.

The Gulf Coast High-Speed Rail Corridor, an area paralleling the Gulf of Mexico from

Texas to Florida, is designated as part of the national network of high-speed ground

transportation corridors to be developed in the United States. The Greater New Orleans

Expressway Commission, a member of the Gulf Coast High-Speed Ground

Transportation Coalition, is the Louisiana lead participant for the Maglev Deployment

Program (GNOEC, 2000). In addition, the Greater New Orleans Expressway

Commission and the New Orleans Aviation Board are working partners to the Louisiana

Maglev Project. The proposed Gulf Coast MagLev Demonstration Project provides for

the implementation of the central section of the Gulf Coast High-Speed Ground

Transportation Corridor, as an initial study corridor (see Figure 2.4-7).

The proposed Louisiana corridor for the Maglev Deployment Program extends from the

Central Business District of New Orleans through the New Orleans International Airport,

across Lake Pontchartrain, and ends to the north, a distance of approximately 77 km (48

mi). The study corridor consists of approximately half developed area and half lake

crossing.

Within the corridor several alternative routes were analyzed for their technical, economic

and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance facility

locations were also considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each alternative

location will undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects this

Alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental

review will be required. This review will assure public input and that site specific

environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in

Figure 2.4-8. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and station/maintenance

locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting Environmental

Assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the individuals identified in

Appendix A).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 26

Source: Gulf Coast Maglev Deployment Project

Figure 2.4-7 - Louisiana Alternative – Locus Map

The National Weather Service has named the New Orleans Metropolitan Area as the

number one area in the nation at risk for catastrophic loss of life due to a direct hit from a

hurricane. The Emergency Preparedness Directors and public officials estimate the

number of individuals in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area without access to private

vehicles to be over 250,000. In case of a severe hurricane and forced evacuation,

officials will be faced with the task of transporting these individuals in school buses and

other public vehicles on a transportation system that will already be loaded with another

650,000 individuals with access to private vehicles. The existing transportation system is

primarily three main roads: the Causeway across Lake Pontchartrain, Interstate 10 to the

east and Interstate 10 to the west. The proposed Maglev system will be able to evacuate

3700 people per hour and can operate at full speed in winds of 100 km per hour (62

mph), providing full service beyond the limits of the surface transportation system. The

south shore stations will be used as passenger collection points and the North Shore

station would serve as a passenger transportation hub and ultimately as a refuge.

Working with the local Parish, State and Federal Emergency Preparedness Directors, the

five story-parking garage could be designed to accommodate approximately 40,000

people as an emergency shelter.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 27

Source: Gulf Coast Maglev Deployment Project

Figure 2.4-8 - Louisiana Alternative – Proposed Routes

The Louisiana Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev

technology. The Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission has established the

following website for further information on the Louisiana Alternative:

www.gulfcoastmaglev.com.

2.4.5 Maryland

The Washington, D.C. and Baltimore Metropolitan areas have highway congestion with

Washington-area roadways representing the second-most-congested in the nation. In the

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, travel times on the roadways during peak periods

were 41 percent higher than under free flow conditions. The equivalent measure in the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 28

Baltimore area is 23 percent. For all measures of congestion, the Washington, D.C. area

ranks 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the nation while Baltimore ranks 14th, 15th, or 16th in the

nation Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA, 2000).

The MTA, in cooperation with the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County and the District

of Columbia, is undertaking the study of a magnetic levitation transportation system

between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. This system would be an initial link of a

Northeast Corridor (NEC) system that could extend to the Southeast.

The Baltimore-Washington Maglev study corridor considered for the Maglev

Deployment Program is approximately 64 km (40 mi) in length and 12.1 km (7.5 mi)

wide and extends north from Washington, D.C. to the City of Baltimore (see Figure 2.4-

9). The study corridor is bounded on the west by Interstate 95 and on the east by the

Amtrak rail line serving the Northeast Corridor and connecting Baltimore with

Washington, D.C. The study corridor contains portions of Washington, D.C., Prince

George’s County in Maryland, Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Baltimore

County, and Baltimore City. In addition to the two large cities and adjacent suburban

communities at either terminus, the suburban communities of Savage, Ft. Meade,

Greenbelt, Odenton, Bowie, Columbia and Laurel are located within the corridor. The

study corridor contains several large tracts of land owned by the Federal Government,

including Fort George G. Meade, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) and the

National (Beltsville) Agricultural Research Center (BARC).

 Source: MTA

Figure 2.4-9 - Maryland Alternative – Locus Map

Within the corridor several alternative routes were analyzed for their technical, economic

and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance facility
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 29

locations were also considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each alternative

location will undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects this

alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental

review will be required. This review will assure public input and that site-specific

environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in

Figure 2.4-10. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and station/maintenance

locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting environmental

assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the individuals identified in

Appendix A).

Source: MTA

Figure 2.4-10 - Maryland Alternative – Proposed Routes
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 30

The Maryland Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev

technology. Maryland Mass Transit Administration and the City of Baltimore have

established the following website for additional information: www.bwmaglev.com.

2.4.6 Nevada

An 83 percent increase in highway and air travel in the Las Vegas-Southern California

corridor is anticipated between 1995 and 2015. Within the next 15 to 20 years, McCarran

International Airport terminals and runways will be approaching capacity, and

opportunity for further expansion is severely constrained. Southern California airports

are expected to be over-capacity in ten years. Las Vegas does not meet federal ambient

air-quality standards for CO and PM10, due in large part to auto exhaust and vehicle

congestion.

The proposed California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project would be implemented in

three phases spanning the distance between Las Vegas, Nevada and Anaheim, California

(CNSSTC, 2000). For the Maglev Deployment Program, an initial study corridor in

regional Las Vegas is being proposed by the California-Nevada Super Speed Train

Commission (see Figure 2.4-11).

The 56 km (35 mi) initial study corridor for the Maglev Project is intended to transport

passengers between Primm and Las Vegas, Nevada. The majority of the initial corridor

is located within the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) right-of-way for

Interstate 15 and traverses an area of sparse development and gentle topography. The

right-of-way is primarily desert between Primm and Las Vegas.

Within the corridor, several alternative routes were analyzed for their technical, economic

and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance facility

locations were also considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each alternative

location will undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects this

Alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental

review will be required. This review will assure public input and that site specific

environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in

Figure 2.4-12. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and station/maintenance

locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting Environmental

Assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the individuals identified in

Appendix A).

The Nevada Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev technology.

The Caliofrnia-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission have established the following

website for additional information: www.ci-LasVegas.nvus/supper_speed_train.htm.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 31

Source: California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission

Figure 2.4-11 - Nevada Alternative – Locus Map
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 32

 Source: California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission

Figure 2.4-12 - Nevada Alternative – Proposed Routes

2.4.7 Pennsylvania

In a 1997 study by the Texas Transportation Institute that quantified congestion levels

and the economic impact of congestion on motorists, Pittsburgh ranked 46th in

congestion severity in 1993. This represents a 4 percent increase in congestion between

1987 and 1993. The 1993 cost of congestion for the region was estimated at $510 million

for delay, $450 million for excess fuel costs and estimated at $290 per capita for 1993.

Increasing these costs to year-2000 dollars based on an annual 2 percent inflation rate,

results in 2000 figures of $580 million for delay, $510 million for excess fuel costs and

$330 per capita. The principal modes of transportation for intercity travelers in the

United States are the automobile and aircraft. In the Pittsburgh region, the principal
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 33

mode is the automobile. Regional highway systems currently suffer from congestion,

especially during rush hours, and are projected to become more congested in the future.

As part of a potential national Maglev System, the Port Authority of Allegheny County in

association with Maglev Inc. envision a Pittsburgh Regional System providing Maglev

service between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with extensions to Baltimore and

Washington, D.C. to the east; Morgantown, Clarksburg and Charleston, West Virginia, to

the south; Wheeling, West Virginia, Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio to the west; and

Erie, Pennsylvania and Buffalo, New York to the north (PAAC, 2000). This regional

system would provide service to approximately 20 other cities within these proposed

corridors. The proposed demonstration project and initial study area considered for the

Maglev Deployment Program would be the first metropolitan Pittsburgh section of the

route to Philadelphia (see Figure 2.4-13).

The initial study area for the proposed Pennsylvania Maglev Demonstration Project is

located in southwestern Pennsylvania in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties. The

study area extends east from PIT to the City of Greensburg, passing through the City of

Pittsburgh’s downtown section and the Municipality of Monroeville along the way. The

study area is part of the Appalachian Plateaus Province and consists of a hilly topography

bisected by numerous streams and rivers with elevations between 213-457 m (700-1,500

ft). Areas of steep slopes can be found along many of the watercourses, especially along

the major rivers, with local relief in these areas up to 152 m (500 ft). The total corridor

length is approximately 72 km (45 mi).

Source: PAAC

Figure 2.4-13 - Pennsylvania Alternative – Locus Map
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 34

Within the corridor, several alternative routes were analyzed for their technical, economic

and environmental attributes. In addition, alternative station and maintenance facility

locations were also considered. The routes and facility locations are at the initial

planning stages of design and the siting process is only beginning. Each alternative

location will undergo public review and comment. Furthermore, if FRA selects this

Alternative for detailed design and possible implementation, a site-specific environmental

review will be required. This review will assure public input and that site specific

environmental conditions will be considered. Preliminary route alternatives are shown in

Figure 2.4-14. Each of the preliminary alternative routes and station/maintenance

locations is discussed in further detail in each of the supporting Environmental

Assessments (copies of these can be obtained by contacting the individuals identified in

Appendix A).

The Pennsylvania Alternative proposes to use the Transrapid International Maglev

technology. The website for additional information on the Pennsylvania Maglev

Alternative is www.maglevpa.com.

Source: PAAC

Figure 2.4-14 - Pennsylvania Alternative – Proposed Routes

2.5 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed.

Economic and population growth will continue around the country and this expansion

will likely result in increased inter-city travel demand and increased congestion. The

increased operational congestion could also lead to safety deficiencies in existing

transportation systems.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 35

The Maglev Deployment Program has been created by Congress as an alternative

transportation program designed to demonstrate a way to alleviate the congestion in

airway and automotive corridors that results from increasing demand for travel. Hence,

in order to analyze the implications of the No-Action Alternative, it is important to

address the preclusion of potential transportation and other related benefits associated

with the Maglev Deployment Program. Under the No-Action alternative, it is expected

that the demand for transportation-infrastructure-development actions, including airport,

railway, and highway expansion projects, would be elevated to meet the increasing

commuter travel demand. Possible actions under the No-Action Alternative include

construction of additional highway or airport capacity or implementation of other high

speed rail alternatives including accelerated rail service (upgrading intercity rail

passenger service on existing railroad corridors) or new high-speed rail systems (new

steel-wheel-on-rail passenger systems that operate almost completely on new rights-ofway). None of these options are eligible under the Maglev Deployment Program and

decisions on whether and what transportation options would be implemented would be

taken largely outside the FRA and outside the Department of Transportation. As a result,

it is extremely difficult to predict with any degree of assurance what solutions

transportation planners would select in the absence of the Maglev Deployment Program.

2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Following issuance of the DPEIS and the close of the public comment period, FRA

reviewed all of the public comments on the DPEIS and made appropriate revisions to the

text of this PEIS. In addition, over the past several months FRA has continued to gather

additional information from the seven program applicants through data submissions and

meetings with each of the seven project teams. This information gathering effort has

focused primarily on: engineering; operating and service characteristics; estimated

project benefits and costs; sources of potential financing; composition of potential

public/private partnerships organized to finance, construct and operate the project; and

other related material. FRA and the Department of Transportation evaluated the Action

Alternative, including the seven proposed projects, and the No-Action Alternative

according to criteria established in the Maglev Deployment Program Final Rule (65 Fed.

Reg. 2342, January 14, 2000). The evaluation considered a number of factors including:

state and community support, the purpose and significance of the project, the service

characteristics, the environmental impact, construction financing, the financing of

ongoing operations, total project benefits and costs, the technical readiness and

implementation schedule, and the status of the public/private partnership.

After carefully analyzing all of the relevant factors, including environmental issues, the

Secretary of Transportation has selected the Action Alternative as the agency’s preferred

alternative (see appendix M). The Secretary has concluded that construction of a Maglev

system would have substantial transportation benefits for the areas served by the selected

alternatives and would demonstrate a promising new technology that could provide

transportation benefits to many areas of the country in the future. Moreover, the

Secretary concluded that at the program level there were no inherent aspects of the

proposed Maglev technology deployment that would raise environmental concerns to the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 36

level that would suggest that the program not advance to the next phase of design

development.

To allow the Department of Transportation to focus its limited resources, only two

projects were identified by the Secretary to participate in the next stage of the program.

After considering the strengths and weaknesses of each project, he concluded that the

Maryland project or Pennsylvania project could be financed and constructed in a timely

manner and would provide the best demonstration of the technology. The Maryland

Project and the Pennsylvania Project both presented proposals that included strong

service characteristics, a strong financing plan, and appeared well on their way to putting

together an effective public/private partnership. The Pennsylvania Project also has

unique plans to use the plant needed to build the project as a platform for developing a

high technology steel fabrication industry in the Pittsburgh area.

In identifying the Action Alternative as the agency’s preferred alternative, the Secretary

would eliminate five projects, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada, from

further consideration. While these projects all showed promise, they were not selected

because the Secretary, informed by the evaluation team, judged they were not as strong as

the two that were selected.

Following the publication of this PEIS, the agency will consider any additional public

concerns and issues in its Record of Decision a minimum of thirty days after the

availability of this PEIS is published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the

Federal Register, as provided for in the CEQ Regulations and FRA’s Environmental

Procedures. Any decision to proceed with the construction phase of the program would

be contingent on receipt of Congressional appropriations and completion of additional

environmental documentation in the form of a site-specific environmental impact

statement.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

As a requirement of the Maglev Deployment Program and cooperative agreements

established between FRA and the selected state alternatives, a technical review of the

affected environment and potential environmental consequences was prepared by each

alternative. The purpose of these technical documents was to provide the baseline

environmental data used by FRA in the preparation of this PEIS (MTA, 2000; FDOT,

2000; GNOEC, 2000; ARC, 2000; CNSSTC, 2000; CM, 2000; PAAC, 2000). The

affected environment section of this PEIS is based almost solely on the information

contained within each alternative’s environmental review document. That information is

incorporated by reference for this PEIS and summarized accordingly below. These

documents have been incorporated by reference to reduce the volume of this PEIS. Only

the climate and topography subsection were developed independently from those

documents. If further information on the affected environment is desired, Appendix A

identifies the person to contact for copies of the alternative’s environmental assessments.

The participants also developed Project Description documents that include a description

of the project its significance, and information regarding engineering design and

technology, operational and economic factors, local and regional benefits, projected

ridership, costs, partnership potential, implementation schedule, and financial planning

(MTA(b), 2000; FDOT(b), 2000; GNOEC(b), 2000; ARC(b),2000; CNSSTC(b), 2000;

CM(a), 2000; PAAC(b), 2000. These documents also have been incorporated by

reference for the Final PEIS; inquiry on the availability of these documents should be

made by contacting the people listed in Appendix A. Additional information can be

obtained by viewing the alternative’s website also identified in Appendix A. The

following is a summary of the affected environments for each of the alternatives.

3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Geologic and soil resources within the United States may be divided into nine regions

based on geologic history and geomorphology. The seven Maglev Alternatives fall

within the four regions listed below (DOD, 1995):

§ Appalachian Region (New England, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,

and parts of Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina,

Georgia, and Alabama) - the Pennsylvania and Georgia Alternatives lie within

this region, and the Maryland Alternative lies partially within this region.

§ Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (New Jersey south through Florida, Florida

west through Texas) - the Maryland, Florida and Louisiana Alternatives lie

within this region.

§ Basin and Range Region (Oregon southeast through Arizona) - the Nevada

Alternative falls within this region.

§ Coast Ranges (Washington south through California) - the California

Alternative lies in this region.

This section describes the general topography, geology and soil conditions associated

with the aforementioned regions. Potential hazards including seismic and volcanic
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 2

activity, flooding, and soil erosion are briefly described. Because the regions are

extensive, the information provided contains only broad generalizations. Where relevant,

geologic and soils resources that are especially site specific, such as mineral, fossil, and

agricultural resources are identified.

3.1.1 Appalachian Region

The Appalachian Region generally consists of the roots of old mountain ranges formed

millions of years ago. Elevations range from 213 to 457 m (700 to 1,500 ft) above mean

sea level. Rounded hills and ridges among steep narrow valleys characterize the region

with gently sloping topography near the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. The

gently sloping topography near these three Rivers is prone to flooding. Although the

region is comprised of six subregions, only two of these subregions are affected by

proposed Maglev Alternatives.

The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative is located in the Appalachian Plateau, which is the

western most subregion. Soils in the Appalachian Plateau subregion primarily belong to

the suborder Ochrepts. Some of these soils, which developed mainly in glacial deposits,

contain hard packed layers that slow percolation of water and restrict root development.

The area has a history of coal mining, as evidenced by several strip and underground

mines in the vicinity of the proposed Maglev Alternative. In some areas, the coal deposit

(seam) is up to 3.6 m (12 ft) thick. Oil and gas exploration also exists in the vicinity of

the proposed Maglev Alternative. Despite numerous small inactive faults, the seismic

hazard for this subregion is minor.

The Georgia Maglev Alternative is located primarily within the Piedmont subregion of

the Appalachian Region. The Piedmont subregion comprises the area along the eastern

face of the Appalachian mountains and is characterized by low, linear, parallel ridges

separated by broad, open valleys and gently rolling hills. The terrain generally slopes to

the east, south, and west. The geology of this subregion is complicated by intensive

folding and over-thrust faulting. A large fault zone known as the Brevard Fault Zone, is a

regional topographic feature that extends from Alabama to North Carolina and that

bisects the Maglev Alternative. This fault zone has been inactive for 195 million years;

therefore, the seismic hazard for this subregion is minor. Soils in this subregion generally

belong to the taxonomic suborder Udults, which are mainly free draining and have very

little organic matter, as they formed predominantly from weathered rocks. The Maryland

Alternative also lies partially within this region.

3.1.2 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plains

This area typically consists of relatively flat plains with gentle slopes along both the

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The potential for flooding is significant in some low

lying areas and areas adjacent to major river systems and the coast. The Florida,

Maryland, and Louisiana Alternatives are located primarily in this geomorphic region.

Seismic activity in this region is minor, although the coast of Louisiana contains an area

of mud volcanoes. These formations are not true volcanoes, but areas where highpressure gas seepages occur, discharging water, mud, sand, fragments of rock, and

occasionally oil. Oil and gas explorations exist in this area. Soils in this region are

primarily Utisols, usually found in areas where groundwater is relatively close to the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 3

surface during part of each year, are formed mainly in alluvium and marine deposits and

are intensely weathered. The soils include varying amounts of organic matter, but are

characterized by a horizon of clay accumulation.

3.1.3 Basin and Range Region

The Nevada Maglev Alternative resides within this geomorphic region. Geologic

features produced by faulting dominate the topography of this region. Ranges formed by

thrust faults are separated by relatively flat expanses of desert, dry lake beds and

ephemeral washes. Thermal springs and geysers are also common. Infrequent but heavy

rainstorms contribute to flash flooding and heavy erosion in stream side locations in this

arid region. Faulting and seismic risk are significant in this region. These hazards are

site specific and can be minimized by proper siting and design of the Maglev system.

Soils in this region are predominantly Mollisols and Argids. Mollisols are characterized

by high surface organic matter content. Argid soils typically have a low soil moisture

content and occur in arid climates.

3.1.4 Coast Ranges

The California Maglev Alternative is located within the most geologically complex

region in the United States. Although the California Maglev Altenative is relatively flat,

elongated north-south mountain ranges and valleys are prominent topographic features

outside the alternative. Soils include Ultisols, Inceptisols, Xeralfs, and Orthents. Utisols

are described above in Section 3.1.2. Inceptisols are usually found on steep mountain

slopes and are characterized by little soil development. Xeralfs are reddish soils that are

dry for extended periods during the summer months. Orthents are typically found on

recent erosional surfaces, and show even less soil development than Inceptisols. Similar

to the Basin and Range region, flash flooding and erosion are common problems due to

relatively steep topography and infrequent but intense rainstorms. This problem is

compounded by the high frequency of forest and chaparral fires that denude the

landscape of vegetation, thereby increasing the possibility of mud flows. Seismic activity

is heavy in this region, thus the seismic hazard is significant. The region is broken by

hundreds of active faults, including the 966 km (600 mi) long San Andreas Fault, which

is the largest fault system in the United States. Volcanic cones also exist in this region,

although not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Maglev Alternative. Mud

volcanoes similar to those described in Section 3.1.2 occur near the coast and thermal

springs are also present in this region.

3.2 CLIMATE

The Maglev Deployment Program involves seven potential alternatives nationwide. Each

of these locations may be impacted by climatic events such as extreme high and low

temperatures, humidity, and by more serious weather conditions, including hurricanes,

tornados, northeasters, ice storms, blizzards, sandstorms, and torrential rains. Table 3.2-1

summarizes the typical climatic conditions associated with each alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 4

Table 3.2-1 - Typical Climate for Proposed Maglev System Locations

California Florida Georgia Louisiana Maryland Nevada Pennsylvania

Avg. Temp. oC (oF) 18.9 (66.0) 22.4 (72.3) 18.0 (64.4) 20.1 (68.1) 12.1 (53.8) 19.5 (67.1) 10.2 (50.3)

Avg. High oC (oF) 23.9 (75.1) 28.1 (82.6) 24.6 (76.3) 25.3 (77.6) 18.4 (65.1) 26.9 (80.5) 15.5 (59.9)

Avg. Low oC oF) 13.8 (56.8) 16.7 (62.0) 11.3 (52.4) 14.7 (58.5) 5.9 (42.6) 12.1 (53.7) 4.8 (40.7)

Highest Recorded Temp. oC

(

o

F)

44 (112.0) 38.9 (102.0) 42.2 (108.0) 38.9 (102.0) 40.0 (104.0) 46.7 (116.0) 39.4 (103.0)

Lowest Recorded Temp. oC

(

o

F)

-2.2 (28.0) -7.2 (19.0) -21.1 (-6.0) -11.7 (11.0) -27.8 (-18.0) -13.3 (8.0) -27.8 (-18.0)

Mean No. of Days Below 32oF 0 3 45 13 115 32 122

Avg. Rainfall cm (in.) 37.6 (14.8) 122.2 (48.1) 113.3 (44.6) 157.2 (61.9) 102.1 (40.2) 10.4 (4.1) 93.7 (36.9)

Avg. Snowfall cm (in.) 0 0 2.5 (1.0) 0.5 (0.2) 57.4 (22.6) 3.3 (1.3) 109.5 (43.1)

Avg. No. Days with Precip. 35 116 110 114 117 26 153

Avg. Wind Speed km/h (mph) 10.0 (6.2) 13.8 (8.6) 12.1 (7.5) 13.2 (8.2) 11.9 (7.4) 15.0 (9.3) 14.6 (9.1)

Data source: http:\\www.washingtonpost.com\weatherpost

Temperature/Humidity. Based on the data presented in the table, several conclusions

can be drawn regarding temperature conditions at the proposed Maglev Alternatives

Alternatives that are subjected to the coldest temperatures include Pennsylvania and

Maryland. Both of these alternatives report an average annual low temperature in the

4°C (40°F) range and experience over 110 days each year with temperatures below 0°C

(32°F). This is more than twice the number of below freezing days per year than that

recorded for the Georgia Alternative (45 days below freezing annually). Conversely, the

Alternatives that are subjected to the warmest temperatures include Nevada and Florida.

Both of these alternatives report an average annual high temperature in the 27°C (80°F)

range. In the summer months, Nevada frequently experiences temperatures above 38°C

(100°F), with the highest reported temperature reaching 44°C (116°F). Florida

experiences its share of 38°C (100°F) days during the summer but temperatures typically

fall in the 32°C (90°F) range. Historically, California has experienced days with

temperatures above the 38°C (100°F) mark, with 45°C (112°F) being the highest

recorded temperature. However, the California Maglev Alternative is proposed for Los

Angeles, an area that typically experiences temperatures that range from the 10°C (50°F)

to the high 27°C (80°F) range. Louisiana and Georgia also experience warm summers,

but to a lesser degree than Nevada and Florida. Florida, Louisiana, Georgia and

Maryland, respectively, have the highest humidity during the summer months.

Tropical Weather Systems. Tropical weather systems including hurricanes and tropical

storms and depressions often strike regions along the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf Coast.

Of the potential Maglev Alternatives, Louisiana and Florida are the most susceptible to

this threat, as these areas could receive a direct hit from a powerful hurricane. The

Maryland Maglev Alternative is also at risk, but to a slightly lesser degree, since tropical

systems tend to weaken in intensity as they travel northward up the Atlantic Coast.

Georgia also can be affected at times by tropical systems; however, these systems usually

weaken in intensity as they travel over land. Tropical storm systems do not typically

affect California, Nevada and Pennsylvania locations.

Tornados are another dangerous weather phenomenon that can affect some of the

proposed Maglev Alternative locations. Georgia, Florida and Louisiana are the three

Alternatives most at risk to these unpredictable systems. Pennsylvania is also susceptible

to tornadic activity, but to a lesser degree. The California, Nevada and Maryland

alternatives typically are not affected by tornados.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 5

Snow and Ice. A northeaster is a strong low pressure system that normally develops off

the coast of the mid-Atlantic states, typically in the winter months, and then accelerates

up the northeastern seaboard. These systems are characterized by high winds that can be

as powerful as the winds associated with a weak hurricane. In addition to the high winds,

a northeaster produces large amounts of snow and ice. These systems can paralyze the

northeast region for days. Maryland and Pennsylvania are the only two alternatives that

can be affected by this weather event.

Ice storms are also a possible occurrence in Pennsylvania and Maryland. During these

storms, the temperature conditions are conducive to rain freezing on exposed surfaces

and forming thick layers of ice. These types of storms cause tremendous amounts of

damage primarily caused by the shear weight of the ice on trees, power lines, and other

objects. The Pennsylvania and Maryland Alternatives can also be affected by a blizzard.

A blizzard produces huge amounts of snowfall and is accompanied by high winds that

contribute to blowing and drifting snow and wind chills well below zero. Like ice storms

and northeasters, blizzards can virtually paralyze a region for days.

Sandstorms. Sandstorms typical occur in the desert southwest during monsoon season.

Temperature and pressure gradients cause high winds to rush across a dry desert valley

floor, resulting in the formation of massive dust clouds. The dust clouds severely impair

visibility and cover exposed objects with a thin layer of dust and sand. These weather

conditions would only affect the proposed Nevada Maglev Alternative.

Rain and Lightning. All of the proposed alternatives will at one time or another be

affected by torrential rainstorms and lightening. Rain storms tend to cause the greatest

impact in those areas where rainfall is less prevalent, the topography is steep, and ground

cover vegetation is relatively sparse. California is the most susceptible to flash flooding,

mudslides and landslides during periods of torrential rains. Nevada is also at risk,

although such events are few and far between at this location, which only receives

slightly more than 10 cm (4 in) of precipitation annually. Flooding can also affect the

other alternatives as well. In these areas, floods occur with greater frequency, but the

damage is typically less severe given the topography and vegetative cover of these areas.

Major floods and lightening can occur anywhere.

3.3 NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS AND WETLANDS

This section describes the ecological resources present in each of the seven alternatives

under study. The main focus will be on vegetation, wildlife, and wetland resources, and

on the relationship between organisms and their environments. Special attention will be

given to the identification of unique species, habitats, and wetlands within each of the

alternatives.

The biological resources of the United States may be divided into seven major terrestrial

biomes or climatic regions: desert, grassland, scrub forest, taiga, temperate deciduous

forest, tropical forest, and tundra (DOD, 1995). The seven alternatives are representative

of the desert, grassland, scrub forest, and temperate deciduous forest biomes. Biome

classification is based on the complex interactions between latitude, topography, altitude,

geology, water resources, temperature, wind, and humidity. Unique ecological resources,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 6

including differences in vegetation, wildlife, and wetland resources, characterize each

biome. Analysis of specific ecological resources is presented below under each of the

alternative subsections.

Habitat and vegetation resources within the alternatives vary with climatic and physical

conditions. Vegetation in the alternative includes a wide range of broad-leaved

deciduous trees, multi-stemmed trees, grasses and herbaceous plants, and grassland and

desert shrubs. The vegetation composition of the regions plays a determinant role in the

occurrence and abundance of wildlife resources. A list of critical vegetation resources by

alternative is presented in Appendix I.

The wildlife-resource distribution is determined to a great extent by the climatic and

physical conditions, and consequent habitat and vegetation resources present in any given

region. The habitats represented by the seven alternatives include a wide variety of small

and large mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and waterfowl, insects, and aquatic

organisms, including a wide diversity of fish and invertebrate organisms. Specific

species composition and relative abundances vary across alternatives. A list of critical

wildlife resources by alternative is presented in Appendix I.

Wetlands are jointly defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by

surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under

normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions” (EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and COE, 33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands may

be divided into two broad categories: estuarine/coastal wetlands subject to tidal influxes

of seawater; and palustrine, inland freshwater wetlands. Wetlands generally include

swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. They are highly productive areas that provide

habitat for many species of plants, fish and waterfowl.

The wide variety of functional values exhibited by wetlands make them valuable

environmental and economic resources. They enhance water quality and supply; provide

flood storage, ground water recharge and discharge, and shoreline anchoring and

dissipation of erosive forces. They retain and remove sediments, nutrients, and

pollutants; provide unique habitat for wetland-dependant flora and for aquatic life,

waterfowl and wildlife. They provide passive and active recreation; and other scientific,

cultural and commercial benefits and heritage value. Wetlands are one of the most

productive ecosystems in the world.

Jurisdiction over the wetlands falls within the Federal regulatory and permit authority of

the United States Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, Section 404

permit requirements. To help slow and minimize wetland loss nationwide, Executive

Order 11990 (E.O. 11990, May 1977), entitled Protection of Wetlands, established a

national policy to “avoid to the extent possible the long-term and short-term adverse

impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or

indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable

alternative.”
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 7

3.3.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative is predominantly comprised of residential,

commercial, and industrial developed areas. Such development provides little habitat

that would support ecological communities. In the western portion of the alternative,

there is a California walnut woodland habitat. In the eastern Section, the alternative

crosses the Santa Ana River, which provides habitat for numerous ecological

communities. Other sensitive biological habitat within the study area include Delhi

sands, Coastal sage scrub, and Riversidean alluvial sage scrub.

The California walnut woodland habitat is described by the California Natural Diversity

Database (NDDB) as an open tree canopy and a mostly-grassy understory. This

woodland is generally found on moist, fine-textured soils of valley slopes and bottoms.

The California Walnut Woodland is considered rare but lacks specific protected status. It

has been threatened by urbanization and grazing.

The Santa Ana River area is listed on the NDDB as a riparian forest supportive of a wide

variety of vegetation and wildlife resources. The forest typically contains a shrub and

herb layer. Riparian corridors are considered sensitive in Southern California due to their

rarity.

The California Maglev Alternative crosses the Santa Ana River in an area where it is

contained by levees. The alternative crosses several other waterbodies over its 129 km

(80 mi) length, many of which are concrete-lined. The Los Angeles and Rio Hondo

rivers are both concrete-lined and contain no wetlands. The San Gabriel River is partially

rectified, but retains a soft bottom that can support wetland species. The washes, creeks

and other drainage ways that feed into the Los Angeles, Rio Hondo, and San Gabriel

Rivers are channelized and do not have associated wetlands. The area with the greatest

amount of wetlands is the Santa Ana River, which is a wide, braided stream within a

levee border. There may also be incidental wetlands associated with drainage ditches

within the alternative, but these have not been surveyed or evaluated.

Wetlands that may occur within the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers are seasonal,

rather than perennial. Because water flows in the San Gabriel and Santa Ana River

channels vary greatly from year to year, and within each year, the potential for wetlands

to exist in these rivers also varies. Water flows are greatest during Southern California’s

rainy season (generally November to March). During this period, the rivers can fully

occupy their levee-bound channels and transport large amounts of run-off materials that

form temporary sandbars. These temporary sandbars may support wetland plant species,

but are subject to annual relocation or even eradication, depending on subsequent rainfall

amounts and the velocity of water movement. Sandbars may remain in the same

locations for a few weeks, or a few years. During the dry season, water volumes are

greatly decreased, affecting the ability to support vegetation. Both rivers are highly

subject to changes in the locations of flowing water and areas of inundation. These

continual changes affect the types, health, and duration of species that can exist in such

an environment.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 8

3.3.2 Florida

The Florida Maglev Alternative is characterized as a coastal environment with extensive

linkages between the estuarine, freshwater, and upland habitat systems. The upland

topography and habitats within most of the Florida Alternative are a result of shallow

water and coastal land forming during periods of higher sea level. Much of the region is

underlain by saline or brackish aquifers, so that the shallow aquifer on Merritt Island and

parts of the adjoining mainland exists essentially as a floating lens on the more dense salt

water. As a result, small variations in topography and hydrology result in significantly

different vegetation and habitats.

The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) and Banana River are part of a large lagoon system that

extends along most of Florida’s east coast, separated from the Atlantic Ocean by low

barrier islands. This system historically has been one of the most productive estuarine

resources in North America and has been labeled as the most diverse in the country due

to its length and latitudinal range (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1994).

According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the diversity and

productivity of the Indian River Lagoon system translates in high commercial and

recreational value. Extensive development in the watershed and along the shorelines has

resulted in degradation of water quality and a probable reduction in adjacent wetlands

and seagrass beds, which provide food resources and water quality buffering for the

estuary. There are no inlets near the alternative, so tidal amplitude is generally low, with

limited interchange between lagoon and oceanic water. Water level and quality,

therefore, are influenced greatly by rainfall and runoff from the watershed.

Largely because of the presence of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

(MINWR), much of the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon and Banana River within

the alternative retains its natural character. The seagrass beds in the Banana River are

among the most vigorous in the Indian River Lagoon system. As a result, the Banana

River, in particular, contains large numbers of West Indian manatees, migratory

waterfowl, and other animal species. Coastal wetlands on much of Merritt Island are also

managed to provide habitat for wading birds and migratory waterfowl.

The Florida Maglev Alternative’s primary wetland types include lagoons/estuaries with

either unvegetated bottoms or seagrass beds; brackish water marshes and mangrove

swamps; and freshwater forested (swamp) and herbaceous (marsh) wetlands. The

estuarine portions of the IRL and Banana River with unvegetated bottoms represent about

57 percent of the total surface water/wetlands within the alternative. Submerged seagrass

beds in the lagoons are only about 3 percent of the total wetlands. Freshwater swamps

represent about 15 percent, and freshwater/ brackish herbaceous marshes are about 25

percent of the total wetlands.

The estuarine system includes the IRL and Banana River. The major resource is the IRL,

which serves as an important marine nursery area due to extensive seagrass beds.

Brackish wetlands occur only occasionally adjacent to the IRL and Banana River in the

alternative. These include very narrow bands of mangrove swamp, mainly along the

shoreline of Merritt Island. Brackish marshes are well developed only along the shore of

Sykes Creek on Merritt Island. In most areas, the marshes and mangrove swamps have

been altered by construction of mosquito-control impoundments, which has significantly
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 9

changed the functions and conditions of these wetlands. Impounded wetlands are present

on the east side of the IRL; these impoundments are managed by MINWR for both

mosquito control and habitat for migratory waterfowl and wading birds.

The most abundant freshwater wetlands are emergent marshes and scrub-shrub wetlands,

with smaller amounts of forested swamps. Most freshwater wetlands on Merritt Island

are wet prairies and scrub shrub swamps in a complex mosaic of upland habitats and

small wetland swales extending in a generally north to south direction. Some larger

freshwater swamps and deeper freshwater marshes exist in the northwest portion of

Merritt Island. Wetlands within the MINWR provide habitat for approximately 200,000

individual waterfowl, including blue herons, egrets, wood storks, cormorants, and brown

pelicans.

Areas on the mainland are characterized by high, sandy, dry soils with wetlands in

depression areas. Almost all freshwater wetlands in the study area are isolated palustrine

wetland systems, and there are no wetlands associated with large streams or rivers. The

mainland wetlands include an approximately equal proportion of freshwater marshes,

freshwater swamps, and shrub swamps. These generally are similar to the Merritt Island

wetlands, but the forested wetlands tend to be more mature. The largest wetlands are

swamps north and southwest of the Space Coast Regional Airport. Many of the wetlands

within the alternative, especially on Merritt Island, contain extensive amounts of nuisance

exotic species such as Brazilian pepper.

The Indian River Lagoon and Banana River, all wetlands within an Outstanding Florida

Waters (OFW) designated area and State and Federal refuges and conservation lands, and

the forested wetlands within the corridor, are considered to be high-quality wetlands.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection designates the Banana River as an

Outstanding Florida Water requiring 50 percent more stormwater treatment pursuant to

Chapter 62-25, FAC.. This group includes most of the wetlands in the project area.

There are no federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the Florida

Maglev Alternative.

3.3.3 Georgia

Habitats within the Georgia Maglev Alternative include open areas (i.e., agricultural

lands, grasslands, and rights-of-way), woodland habitats (i.e., mostly oak/hickory forest

and pine-hardwood forest, and a smaller amount of mesic hardwoods and alluvial

forests), open water (i.e., lakes, rivers and ponds), wetlands (i.e., forested, scrub-shrub,

and emergent), and developed areas (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial). No

particularly valuable ecological communities have been recorded along the proposed

alternative. This was confirmed through correspondence with the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) (Atlanta Regional Commission, 2000).

The vegetative types present within the alternative include forests, scrub, and emergent.

Forest habitats include hardwood, pine-hardwood, and forested wetlands. Within the

alternative, ponds are typically highly disturbed, man-made drainage basins dredged

periodically to keep siltation and vegetation to a minimum. As such, they have limited

value for wildlife and aquatic species. Vegetation within developed areas generally

consists of planted grasses and shrubs. Native or naturalized species are also found in
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 10

developed areas. Agricultural areas are usually planted with field crops or fescue/winter

grasses, and active pastures are inhabited by herbaceous species. Right-of-way and open

areas (fallow fields) are typically dominated by remnant pasture grasses or early

successional species such as fescue, broomsedge, ragweed, dog fennel, goldenrod, and

sheep sorrel, with thickets of blackberry and Japanese honeysuckle, as well as scattered

pine and hardwood seedlings and saplings.

Woodlands provide varying values to wildlife for food and/or cover, and as roosting,

foraging, and nesting habitants for a variety of birds, depending on the species

composition and successional age of the vegetation. Species present in the alternative

include white-tailed deer, gray and red squirrels, mice, and birds such as wild turkeys,

warblers, and woodpeckers. Additionally, the shrub layer and brush piles may provide

cover for small to medium-sized mammals. Raptors, including red-shouldered hawks,

Cooper’s hawks, red-tailed hawks, barred owls, and screech owls also utilize wooded

areas for nesting and foraging. Wooded areas, especially moist woods, also provide

habitat for reptiles such as salamanders.

Wildlife that relies heavily on streams and wetlands may include wading birds,

waterfowl, and a few mammals. Many species of reptiles and amphibians also use this

habitat. Forested wetlands provide habitat for species similar to those described for

upland woodland habitat. Some species of birds, however, prefer forested wetland

habitat to forested uplands. Scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands provide foraging habitat

for wading birds and waterfowl, as well as for reptiles and amphibians. Agricultural

cropland may provide a food source for many opportunistic species such as white-tailed

deer, turkey, and migrating waterfowl. In addition to providing a food source, active

cropland may also provide cover for species. Open lands may provide food and cover for

numerous small mammals, some larger mammals, and seed- and insect-eating birds and

bats. Grasslands, including pastureland and cropland gone fallow, may also provide

foraging habitat and cover for a variety of grassland bird species. Most reptiles prefer

wetter habitats; however, snakes whose diets include small mammals may be found in

open-area habitats. Open areas bordered by woodland habitats increase their value by

providing additional adjacent cover for all wildlife. Open areas characterized by fences

or hedgerows provide additional cover and are frequently used by bird for nesting and

roosting. Developed land, maintained areas, and residential, commercial, and industrial

areas generally provide poor wildlife habitat. Some opportunistic species, especially

birds, have adapted to development more readily than other species.

The wetland assessment of the alternative included an evaluation of wetland types, area,

and functions and values of the wetland systems identified. Wetland area was calculated

using existing National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. Functions and values were

based on professional judgment and available literature for each habitat. Hydrology,

flora, usefulness in the environment, and its relative socioeconomic worth were used in

the evaluation process. Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, U.S. FW and

the Georgia Natural Heritage Program have been contacted (ARC, 2000).

Preliminary site reconnaissance of wetlands was conducted in November 1999; however,

the reconnaissance methods used did not include the level of detail required to meet the

standards of the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 11

site wetland reconnaissance was limited to those areas identified on NWI maps. A total

of 57 NWI-mapped wetlands encompassing 106 hectares (ha) (261.7 acres (ac)) were

identified in the Georgia Maglev Alternative; however, five of these wetlands could not

be surveyed because of access limitations. Wetlands within the alternative were

classified based on NWI classification and modified as a result of field observations. Six

types of wetlands were found within the alternative; palustrine forested, palustrine

emergent, palustrine scrub-shrub, palustrine unconsolidated bottom, lacustrine, and

riverine.

3.3.4 Louisiana

The major landforms encountered in the Louisiana Maglev Alternative are urban

developed lands, marsh/swamp, lakeshore, lake open water, riverine, and upland. The

State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries does not have Wildlife

Management Areas (WMA) near or within the 1.3 km (4,000 ft) corridor. The State of

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources does not have any existing or potential areas

of special designation Gulf Coast Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) involved or in

the vicinity of the corridor.

Two large wetland areas of marsh and swamp are found within the alternative. The

alternative traverses tidally influenced marsh, water bottoms in Lake Pontchartrain

supportive of submerged aquatic vegetation, and the site of a wetland-restoration project

authorized under the auspices of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and

Restoration Act (NOAA, 2000). In the northwestern portion, the alternative includes part

of an unnamed swamp and marsh area at and along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain.

This area also includes isolated wetlands and wetlands associated or interconnected with

the Black River and its tributaries.

The western portion of the alternative includes the eastern edge of the La Branche

wetlands, traversing several canals. Within this area, the National Marine Fisheries

Service sponsors the La Branche Wetlands Restoration Plan project that encompasses

approximately 1,025 ha (2,533 ac) of intermediate wetlands and 703 ha (1,738 ac) of

brackish wetlands. The objectives of the project are to reduce emergent-marsh loss along

the southern Lake Pontchartrain shoreline and within interior fringing marshes, to create

emergent marsh, and to improve habitat quality using vegetative plantings and herbivore

control. Significant features within and near the alternative limits for the La Branche

Wetlands Restoration Plan project include shoreline protection, marsh terraces,

vegetation planting, and herbivore control.

Wetlands of freshwater bayous, canals, and swamps in the western portion of the corridor

provide habitat for a variety of vegetation and fishes. Freshwater marshes and small

portions of brackish-water marshes extend into the Maglev Alternative. There are no

wetlands or natural hydrologic flow remaining in the urbanized portion of the alternative.

The natural hydrology has been completely modified by an integrated system of canals,

ditches, subsurface drainage and pumping stations, levees, and other water control

structures. Natural water bodies, wetlands, and flow patterns do occur in the western and

northwestern Section of the alternative. However, the flow patterns in the western areas
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 12

have been significantly altered by the installation of levees, bridges, canals, highways,

and new roads.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has identified the presence of Essential Fish

Habitat (EFH) within the alternative. The alternative is located in an area identified as

EFS for post larval, juvenile, and adult stages of brown shrimp, white shrimp, and red

drum. Categories of EFH in the alternative and surrounding areas include estuarine

emergent wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, estuarine water column, and mud,

sand, and shell substrates. In addition, the NMFS states that the alternative, and

specifically the Lake Pontchartrain estuary and surrounding marshes, provide nursery,

foraging, and refuge habitats for a wide variety of fishery assemblages, including gulf

menhaden, southern flounder, blue crab, and black drum.

Functional values define the quality of the wetlands within the Louisiana Maglev

Alternative. However, each functional value will likely have varying levels of magnitude

and importance in different areas. In general, the wetlands between Lake Pontchartrain

and New Orleans International Airport (NOIA) provide benefits in their ability to buffer

against flooding, provide habitat for urban wildlife, recreational opportunities for viewing

wildlife, as well as potential breeding habitat for birds, fish, and other aquatic life. The

wetlands on the North shore provide a buffer against flooding, shoreline anchoring,

erosion control, ground water discharge and recharge, filtering agricultural runoff, habitat

for wildlife, recreational opportunities for viewing wildlife, as well as various potential

breeding habitat for birds, fish, and other aquatic life.

3.3.5 Maryland

The Maryland Maglev Alternative contains several large natural resources, including the

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) and the Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center (PWRC). The alternative is located near the Chesapeake Bay estuary and its

tributaries. There are five general types of habitat within the alternative: developed areas,

small woodland tracts, agricultural or pasture fields, forested wetlands adjacent to

streams, and large tracts of forest. The first four habitat types provide habitat for

generalist species. Many wildlife species such as white-tailed deer, raccoons, Canada

geese, and groundhog prefer the open and edge habitat that has been created by

development. Within the alternative, the PWRC and the BARC provide large tracts of

forest habitat for more specialized species.

In the State of Maryland, wetlands are protected under the Maryland Non-Tidal Wetlands

Protection Act. An extensive network of streams and rivers drains into the Chesapeake

Bay and wetlands occur throughout the alternative. NWI maps from the U.S. FWS were

used to identify wetlands within the alternative. The Wetlands of Special State Concern

digital data set was developed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD

DNR) using 1998 NWI maps as a base map.

In Maryland, wetlands with rare, threatened or endangered species, and wetlands with

unique habitat values receive special protection under Maryland law. The Code of

Maryland Regulations (COMAR) identifies these as Wetlands of Special State Concern

(WSSC). The NWI was initially used to identify the WSSC. Some WSSC boundaries

may be the same as NWI boundaries. The majority of the WSSC within the alternative
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 13

are located near the river systems and their larger tributaries. Critical Areas are all land

and water areas within 305 m (1,000 ft) landward of the state tidal boundary of the

shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Within the alternative, all of the

Critical Areas are located along the Middle Branch, the Patapsco River, and the smaller

tributaries of the Patapsco River. These areas are subject to tidal influences due to their

proximity to the Chesapeake Bay. NWI wetlands are predominately located near the

three river systems contained within the alternative. Along the Patuxent River system

and Anacostia River system, the majority of NWI wetlands are classified as palustrine

forested (PFO). In the northern Section of the alternative along the Patapsco River, NWI

wetlands are largely estuarine sub-tidal emergent (E1EM) or estuarine inter-tidal

emergent (E2EM).

3.3.6 Nevada

The southern Section of the Nevada Maglev Alternative crosses a low pass through a

series of hills for about 4.5 km (2.8 mi). As a result of the slightly increased elevation

and more rocky terrain, the vegetation in this area is a Mojave mixed-scrub vegetation

community, which is also common throughout the Mojave on slopes, in washes, or in

upland areas. South of Las Vegas to Primm, the alternative is mostly composed of

relatively undisturbed desert. The majority of the undisturbed desert is characterized as a

bursage vegetation community, common in the valleys of the northern Mojave Desert in

California and Nevada, above the dry lakebeds and below the foothills. Common small

mammals, lizards, and larger mammals are among the species that inhabit the region.

Solely urbanized areas of the city of Las Vegas devoid of native vegetation compose the

northernmost section of the alternative.

Based on information from the Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas District Resource

Management Plan, the alternative crosses no unique habitats or ecosystems such as

mesquite bosques, sand dunes, rock piles or outcrops, or wetlands.

The Mojave Desert has limited precipitation and relatively deep water tables; thus areas

classified as wetlands under the Clean Water Act are limited to springs and the pools or

drainages they produce. These springs primarily occur in or at the base of mountain

ranges, or at rare locations where the geologic features cause ground water to reach the

surface. Based on reviews of National Wetlands Inventory maps produced by the U.S.

FWS, and visual observation, there are no areas that would be classified as wetlands

within the alternative. There are no federally delineated wetlands in the Nevada Maglev

Alternative. Wetlands are not classified or granted unique protection under State of

Nevada laws or regulations.

3.3.7 Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative is located in the Appalachian Plateau Province of

Pennsylvania. Narrow, steep-sided valleys dissect the plateau. Elevations range from

213 m (700 ft) to over 460 m (1,500 ft). Originally a dense cover of trees covered the

area; however, clearing for urban development, agricultural uses, mining activities, and

timbering have eliminated much of that forestland. Presently, all the forested cover

within the alternative is a mosaic of second- and third-growth woodland communities.

Eight broad community types were identified within the alternative and include urban or
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 14

built-up land, cropland and pasture, rangeland, forestland, large streams and rivers, open

water, wetlands, and barren land. Rangeland includes open land (herbaceous), shrub and

brush, and mixed rangeland. Forestlands include deciduous and evergreen forests.

The Oak/Hickory forest-type group is the most common and mature forest type within

the alternative. The next-most-dominant forest-type group is the Northern Hardwoods.

Eastern Hemlock is found in the cooler, wetter areas characteristic of higher elevations in

the eastern section of the alternative. Wildlife communities are important ecological,

economical, and recreational resources of the project area. A diverse array of wildlife

species occurs within the forested habitats described above, as well as many other habitat

types, including big game, small game, fur-bearing species, other small and large

mammals, forest songbirds and raptors, and amphibians and reptiles. The presence of

forest-floor litter such as decayed logs, flat rocks, fallen limbs, and leaf material is an

important habitat component, providing foraging cover and daytime refuge for many

species.

Rangeland communities provide habitat for a number of wildlife species adapted to open

space and early successional vegetation. In addition, these communities can create

surrounding edge environments where they abut with one or more habitat types such as

forests or wetlands. The edge environment often provides greater habitat diversity and

attracts a greater number of species than the individual communities by themselves,

including many common shrub species that are beneficial to wildlife. However, forestedge habitat can also be viewed as undesirable. Certain nest-parasitic bird species have

their greatest impact on other native species in areas where edge habitat is common.

Small mammals essentially dominate wildlife species typically found in rangeland.

Larger predators hunt for small mammals in these areas where multiple habitat types are

interspersed and interconnected.

A variety of bird species forage in open field areas and use the shrubby edge habitat for

nesting and cover. In addition, these areas are utilized as foraging habitat by raptor

species. The openness and lack of adequate ground cover within these habitats generally

result in poor species diversity and population numbers for most reptile and amphibian

species. However, some reptile species prey on the resident small-mammal and insect

populations. Wildlife use of cropland is largely dependent on the crop being grown and

the season. Crops such as ear corn and soybeans provide cover and food for a number of

birds and small mammals. After harvest, waste materials attract many migrating and

wintering waterfowl species.

Emergent wetlands within the Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative occur on land that was

previously cleared for development, including agricultural. Herbaceous wetland

vegetation typically found in southwestern Pennsylvania consists of a mixture of grasses,

sedges, and rushes. Scrub-shrub wetlands within the 183 m (600 ft) wide corridors occur

along stream and river systems and often provide a transition zone between herbaceous

and forested wetlands. Forested wetlands are located mainly in the floodplains of the

larger stream and river valleys. The majority of forested wetlands have been logged and

now primarily consists of second- or third-growth trees.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 15

A variety of plant and animal species use wetlands, which are essential for feeding,

breeding, nesting, and refuge. Many threatened or endangered species in Pennsylvania

depend on wetlands at least some time in their life cycle. Wetlands are generally diverse

vegetative communities that provide habitat for a wide array of vertebrate species.

Waterfowl and wading birds are the most recognized group of animals that occupy

wetlands, as well as other fishing birds. Common reptiles and amphibians that require

wetland habitat for survival include toads and frogs, salamanders, water snakes, and

turtles such as the Snapping Turtle and Painted Turtle.

The high amount of urban development within the alternative restricts wetland

development. Within the alternative, isolated wetlands are generally located in

depressional areas, or on broad upland flats between mountain ridges. Soils associated

with these wetlands generally consist of silty clays that reduce soil permeability and

result in poor drainage. Due to these soil conditions, wetland areas remain inundated or

saturated for long periods after storm events. However, most of the wetlands identified

within the alternative are located adjacent to streams or rivers. Hydrology to these

wetlands is typically provided by flooding events or from the water table being located

very near to the surface.

3.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531-1543) declares the intention of

Congress to protect all federally-listed threatened and endangered species, both flora and

fauna, and designated critical habitat of such species in the United States and abroad.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires that federal agencies ensure that any

action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat. Critical habitat, as defined in the Endangered

Species Act (16 USC 1532 (5) (A)) is the specific location within the geographic area

occupied by the species essential to the conservation of the species, which may require

special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat does not include the

entire geographic area that can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species (16

USC 1532 (5) (C)). The U.S. FWS is the primary regulatory agency responsible for

compliance of the Act. The U.S. FWS maintains additional categories that are not legally

protected, but should be considered during the planning process for any federal project.

These additional categories are Proposed Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and

Candidate Species.

The threatened and endangered species identified within each alternative are listed in

Table 3.4-1. This information was developed by direct contact with the regions U.S.

FWS. Each state also has unique programs, methodologies, and lists identifying

threatened or endangered species. Each state’s fish and game agency was contacted in

the development of the table. This does not necessarily mean that each threatened or

endangered species will be found within the corridor alternative, it only identifies the

likelihood of the threatened or endangered species being there or that the habitat is

available to support the species.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 16

Table 3.4-1 - Potential Threatened or Endangered Species Within the Alternative*

Alternative Potential Threatened or Endangered Species

California Coastal California gnatcatcher

Southern tarplant

Coulter's goldfields

Davidson's saltscale

Intermediate mariposa lily

Many-stemmed dudleya

Parish's gooseberry

Southern skullcap

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

California walnut woodland

Santa Ana sucker

Delhi sands flower-loving fly

Least Bell’s vireo

Arroyo chub

San Diego horned lizard

Stephen's kangaroo rat

Parish's desert-thorn

Parry's spineflower

Smooth tarplant

Robinson's pepper-grass

Western spadefoot

Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest

Southern sycamore alder riparian woodland

Southwestern willow fly-catcher

El Segundo blue butterfly

Florida Atlantic sturgeon

Common snook

Gopher frog

Sand skink

Blue-tailed mole skink

Eastern indigo snake

Florida pine snake

Atlantic salt marsh snake

Short-tailed snake

American alligator

Gopher tortoise

Atlantic green turtle

Atlantic loggerhead turtle

Roseate spoonbill

Limpkin

Little blue heron

Reddish egret

Snowy egret

Tricolored heron

White ibis

Wood stork

Piping plover

Least tern

Roseate tern

Black skimmer

American oystercatcher

Brown pelican

Florida grasshopper sparrow

Arctic peregrine falcon

Southeastern American kestrel

Southern bald eagle

Florida burrowing owl

Red-cockaded woodpecker

Florida scrub-jay

Florida mouse

West indian manatee

Giant leatherfern

Curtiss' milkweed

Many-flowered grass pink

Sand-dune spurge

Satinleaf

Large-flowered rosemary

Lakala's mint

Wild coco

Nodding pinwood

Small-leaved melanthera

Hand fern

Shell mound prickly pear cactus

Cinnamon fern

Royal fern

Terrestrial peperomia

Blunt-leaved peperomia

Blue butterwort

Yellow butterwort

Snowy orchid

Tiny polygala

Brown-haired snoutbean

Queen's delight

Wild pine (balbisiana)

Wild pine (utriculata)

Tampa vervain

Blodgett's ironweed

Rain lily

Georgia Cherokee darter

Bachman's sparrow

Bay starvine

Broadleaf bunchflower

Georgia aster

Indian olive

Michaux's sumac

Monkeyface orchid

Mountain witch-adler

Louisiana Pallid sturgeon

Gulf sturgeon

Brown pelicans

Southern bald eagles

Peregrine falcon

Piping plover

Interior least terns

West indian manatees

Ringed sawback turtle

Maryland Peregrine falcon

Swamp pink

Giant cane

Leavenworth’s sedge

Bachman’s sparrow

Great blue heron

Glassy darter

Bog fern

Clammyweed

Short-fruited rush

Nevada Desert tortoise

Rosy twotone beardtongue

Yellow twotone beardtongue

Banded gila monster

California/Las Vegas bearpoppy

White-margined beardtongue

Desert/White bearpoppy

Pennsylvania Indiana bat

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

Species listed include all Federal, State, Regional, and Local listed species in the study areas.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 17

3.5 WATER QUALITY

This section identifies and describes the current hydrological conditions at potential

Maglev Alternatives in terms of surface-water and groundwater system characteristics.

Federal water quality standards set specific criteria for the levels of parameters that must

be maintained to protect water quality and water uses. There are two primary regulations

dealing with water quality, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water

Act (CWA). The SDWA emphasizes pollution prevention to ensure safe drinking water,

focusing on the protection of water resources. The objective of the CWA is to eliminate

or control the discharge of pollutants into source waters. EPA drinking water quality

standards are health-based and enforceable for all public drinking water supply systems

(primary standards). Secondary standards control substances that affect aesthetic

qualities (such as taste, odor, and color). They are not Federally enforceable and, if

exceeded, would generally not cause health problems. In addition, state and local

ordinances may regulate construction activity in watershed or water supply aquifer areas.

These local considerations will be addressed during the final design and engineering

environmental review process.

Important characteristics of the groundwater system include recharge zones (areas where

water infiltrates from the surface and reaches the saturated zone), discharge points

(locations were groundwater reaches the surface), unsaturated zones (the portion of the

groundwater system above the water table), saturated zones (the portion of the

groundwater system below the water table), and aquifers (water bearing layers of rock or

sediment that provide water in usable quantities to a well or spring). In combination

these characteristics define the quantity and quality of the available groundwater.

Appropriate mitigation measures must be applied to all bodies of water and water

resources that are negatively impacted by the Maglev Program. Surface water and

groundwater are two potential regions of influence of the Maglev Program on water

quality. Surface water concerns include construction areas that would be susceptible to

erosion, areas affected by permanent changes in flow, and areas downstream of the

project site that would be affected by eroded soil or potential spills of construction

contaminants. Groundwater issues include aquifers that would underlie areas of

construction and operation, aquifers that could be sources of water for construction, and

aquifers downstream of the project site that use, or long-term releases from that project,

could affect.

3.5.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative is underlain by several aquifers: the West Coast

Basin, the Central Basin, the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Upper Santa Ana Basin.

The West Coast Basin, the Central Basin and the Main San Gabriel Basin are currently

designated potable sources. The Upper Santa Ana Basin is designated as a potential

water supply.

Within the California Alternative, there are several surface water bodies: the Los Angeles

River, the Rio Hondo, the San Gabriel River, the Santa Ana River, the Ballona Creek and

Centinela Creek. The Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo are fully channelized. The
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 18

San Gabriel River is partially rectified, but retains a soft bottom. The Santa Ana River is

a meandering, soft bottom stream with an extensive band of associated wetlands. There

are no wetlands associated with the Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo, but the San

Gabriel has wetland characteristics.

3.5.2 Florida

The Florida Maglev Alternative is underlain by the Floridian aquifer system, and other

intermediate and shallow surficial aquifer systems. The Floridian aquifer system is saline

and not used for potable purposes within the study area. Shallow surficial aquifer wells

produce water for heat-pump air conditioning and lawn irrigation. Aquifer recharge areas

are west of the Banana River.

There are many surface water bodies within the Florida Alternative, including rivers,

shallow estuarine lagoons, tidal creeks, fresh water creeks, canals, and small natural and

excavated ponds. The most significant water bodies in the area are the Banana and

Indian Rivers.

3.5.3 Georgia

Due to irregular rock formations, the aquifers in the Georgia Maglev Alternative are

poorly defined, and are not mapped. Consequently, there are no specifically named

aquifers. Wells drilled in random locations yield low amounts of water, enough for

domestic use only.

The Georgia Alternative includes rivers, streams, tributaries, and lakes. The watersheds

within the are the Upper Flint, Upper Ocmulgee, Upper Middle Chattahoochee, Upper

Chattahoochee and Etowah.

There are three public well water supplies and one public drinking water intake within the

Georgia Alternative. The drinking water intake occurs at the Hemphill Water Treatment

Plant, which draws water from the Atlanta Reservoir. The Chattahoochee River and

Lake Allatoona are used as public drinking water supplies, but the intakes are outside of

the alternative. The Chattahoochee River intake is approximately 9.6 km (6 mi) to the

east. The Lake Allatoona intake is approximately 16 km (10 mi) to the north.

The Chattahoochee River and the Atlanta Reservoir are the project area’s two water

bodies with the highest water quality. There are six stream segments within the

alternative that do not meet the regulated standard criteria and are considered low quality,

and do not support their designated use: part of the Chattahoochee River, Peachtree

Creek, Nancy Creek, Rottenwood Creek, Slope Creek, Noonday Creek.

3.5.4 Louisiana

The Louisiana/Mississippi Southern Hills Aquifer System and a sole source aquifer are

located in the northern portion of the Louisiana Maglev Alternative. A sole source

aquifer is an aquifer designated as the “sole or principal source” of drinking water for a

given service area; that is, an aquifer which is needed to supply 50 percent of more of the

drinking water for the service area with no reasonably available alternative sources

should the aquifer become contaminated.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 19

No natural hydrologic flow remains in the New Orleans urbanized area. The natural

hydrology has been completely modified by an integrated system of canals, ditches, and

subsurface drainage, pumping stations, levees and other surface storm water control

structures.

The open bodies of water located within the Louisiana Alternative include the Mississippi

River (fresh), Lake Pontchartrain (brackish), and the Black River (fresh). Potable water

is obtained from the Mississippi River in the southern portion of the alternative.

3.5.5 Maryland

Ten distinct watersheds are contained within the Maryland Maglev Alternative:

Anacostia River, Western Branch, Patuxent River Upper, Rocky Gorge Dam, Little

Patuxent River, Middle Patuxent River, Severn River, Patapsco River Lower North

Branch, Gwynns Falls, Baltimore Harbor, and Jones Falls.

The Anacostia River in the southern portion of the Maryland alternative study corridor is

fed by two tributaries, the Northwest Branch, and the Northeast Branch. These two

tributaries converge to form the Anacostia River before flowing south into Washington,

D.C. and ultimately the Potomac River. The Patuxent River and the Little Patuxent River

flow through the center of the alternative. These two rivers converge outside the

alternative to the southeast to form one major river, the Patuxent River. Two major

stream tributaries located in the northern portion of the Maryland Alternative, Deep Run

and Stony Run, feed the Patapsco River.

3.5.6 Nevada

Within the Las Vegas portion of the Nevada Maglev Alternative is a deep aquifer, more

than 60 m (200 ft) below ground level containing potable water. A surface aquifer,

containing non-potable water is also located in this area.

The alternative encompasses through three basins; the Ivanpah Valley Basin, the Jean

Lake Valley Basin, and the Las Vegas Basin. The Ivanpah Valley Basin flows to the

south-southwest into Roach Lake, a dry lakebed. Flow within this portion of the Jean

Lake Valley Basin is to the south, into Jean Lake, which is also a dry lakebed. The Las

Vegas Basin flows north and then east to the Las Vegas Wash, which subsequently flows

into Lake Mead and the Colorado River.

Due to the desert climate of the Nevada Alternative, there are essentially no surface water

resources. All streams and washes within the alternative contain water only after

significant precipitation events within the watersheds.

3.5.7 Pennsylvania

Aquifers within the Pennsylvania Alternative include the Appalachian Basin and a

narrow surficial aquifer located along the valleys of the Ohio, Allegheny, and

Monongahela Rivers.

The alternative traverses three major river basins or watersheds: the Ohio, Allegheny, and

Monongahela Rivers. Within these major watersheds are many sub-watersheds.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 20

Surface water is an important source of public water supplies within the alternative.

Surface water intakes are located along each of the three major rivers. Five surface water

supply sources are located within the alternative.

3.6 FLOOD HAZARD

Flooding is a natural process that consists of the rising and overflowing of a body of

water onto normally dry land. The area of normally dry land that becomes flooded is

typically referred to as a floodplain. Floodplains lie adjacent to existing waterways and

are characterized by relatively large expanses of land with gradual topographic gradients.

During periods of flooding, floodplains naturally moderate flood flow, contribute to

human safety, provide water quality maintenance, act as areas for ground water recharge,

and serve as temporary habitat for a number of plants and animals. Any structure that is

built in the floodplain will take up part of the space normally flooded. The result is

floodwaters will increase in height and encroach beyond the normal floodplain. Base

floodplain is the area at risk that has a one percent or greater chance of flood elevations

being exceeded in any given year; also referred to as the base or 100-year flood (i.e., once

every 100 years on the average).

The protection of floodplains and floodways is required by Executive Order 11988,

Floodplain Management of 1977 (44 CFR 9), as amended, National Flood Insurance Act

of 1968 (42 USC 4124), as amended, and U.S. Department of Transportation Order

5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection. The National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP) is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which

oversees floodplain management for the program. The intent of these regulations is to

avoid or minimize encroachments within the base floodplains, where practicable, and to

avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplain values.

Boundaries of 100-year floodplains are determined from studies performed by FEMA.

FEMA has prepared Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM) and Flood Insurance Rate

Maps (FIRMs) which are the basis for regulating floodplain development.

Floodplain boundaries for the seven Maglev Alternatives are identified in the individual

site EAs. Contact the person(s) listed in Appendix A to obtain copies of these EAs.

3.7 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership

between the Federal government and U.S. coastal states. State compliance to the

National CZM Program usually results in a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CMP) that

sets standards and develops procedures to help guide coastal development. The state

plans are generally similar to land use planning tools. The purpose of the plans are to

preserve, protect, develop, restore and enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone

for this and succeeding generations. Reflecting on the diverse natural environment of the

coastal zone and the varied uses of coastal lands and waters, the CZM Program focuses

on balancing competing land and water uses while protecting shrinking sensitive

resources.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 21

Each of the Maglev Alternatives was reviewed to determine if they were within the

jurisdiction of a designated CZM district. Table 3.7-1 identifies which alternatives are

within coastal zone district and thus, responsible for considering CMPs. Upon review of

the individual alternatives, it was found that the Florida, Louisiana and Maryland

Alternatives lie within a coastal zone district.

Table 3.7-1 - Coastal Zone District Jurisdiction

Alternative Lies Within

Coastal Zone

District

California No

Florida Yes

Georgia No

Louisiana Yes

Maryland Yes

Nevada No

Pennsylvania No

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000);

(GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000);

 (PAAC, 2000)

3.8 AIR QUALITY

In accordance with EPA, the impacts from air pollutants must be quantified in two ways.

The first is by the total mass of pollutants emitted, generally called an emission

inventory. The second is by the concentration of the pollutants in the air we breathe. To

determine these impacts, it is first necessary to establish a baseline. This is done by

analyzing the existing environment so that magnitude of impacts from a proposed action

can be determined.

The determination of the total mass emitted allows direct comparisons to determine if

additional burden will be placed on the surrounding air basin. These mass determinations

also allow impacts to be analyzed on secondary pollutants (those that form from primary

precursor gases in the atmosphere) and regional impacts.

While the total mass emission calculation provides insight into proposed actions, the

effect on human health and public welfare cannot be determined with these calculations.

The regulatory setting delineates if impacts occur by the use of established standards. Air

quality standards may be applied at the Federal, State or local level. However, State and

local standards cannot be less stringent than the Federal standards and all projects must

consider the Federal standards.

The Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments have determined the regulatory

requirements. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were required in the

1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and although altered, are still valid under the current

legislation, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards (OAQPS) has promulgated these standards. The primary NAAQS are to
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP



SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF KHDOWK ZLWK DQ DGHTXDWH PDUJLQ RI VDIHW\ LQFOXGLQJ WKH KHDOWK RI

3VHQVLWLYH ́ SRSXODWLRQV VXFK DV DVWKPDWLFV FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH HOGHUO\  7KH VHFRQGDU\

1$$46 DUH WR SURWHFW WKH SXEOLF ZHOIDUH LQFOXGLQJ SURWHFWLRQ DJDLQVW GHFUHDVHG

YLVLELOLW\GDPDJHWRDQLPDOVFURSVYHJHWDWLRQDQGEXLOGLQJV6L[SROOXWDQWVGHVFULEHG

DV3FULWHULD ́SROOXWDQWVDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKH1$$46DQGSUHVHQWHGLQ7DEOH8QLWV

RIPHDVXUH IRUWKH VWDQGDUGV DUH SDUWV SHUPLOOLRQ SSPPLOOLJUDPV SHU FXELFPHWHU RI

DLUPJPDQGPLFURJUDPVSHUFXELFPHWHURIDLUJP

2]RQH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ SHDNV LQ WKH PLG DIWHUQRRQ ZKHQ UHOHDVH RI 9RODWLOH

2UJDQLF &RPSRXQGV 92&V DQG 12[ WXUQ LQWR DIWHUQRRQ R]RQH  $OVR R]RQH

FRQFHQWUDWLRQVWHQGWREHJUHDWHULQWKHVXPPHUZKHQVRODUUDGLDWLRQLVJUHDWHUSURYLGLQJ

PRUH HQHUJ\ IRUWKH VHFRQGDU\ SROOXWDQWWR IRUP  &DUERQ PRQR[LGH FRQFHQWUDWLRQV DUH

JHQHUDOO\ JUHDWHU GXULQJ ZLQWHU PRQWKV EHFDXVH RI WKH ORZHU PL[LQJ KHLJKWV PRUH

VKDOORZDWPRVSKHULFPL[LQJDQGDUHPRVWRIWHQUHODWHGWRSHDNKRXUWUDIILF

7DEOH±1DWLRQDO$PELHQW$LU4XDOLW\6WDQGDUGV


32//87$17 67$1'$5'9$/8( 67$1'$5'7<3(

&DUERQ0RQR[LGH&2

KRXU$YHUDJH SSP PJP 3ULPDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH SSP PJP 3ULPDU\

1LWURJHQ'LR[LGH12

$QQXDO$ULWKPHWLF0HDQ SSP JP

 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

2]RQH2

KRXU$YHUDJH
 SSP JP

 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH
 SSP JP

 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

/HDG3E

4XDUWHUO\$YHUDJH JP 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

3DUWLFXODWHPLFURPHWHUV30

$QQXDO$ULWKPHWLF0HDQ JP 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH JP 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

3DUWLFXODWHPLFURPHWHUV30

$QQXDO$ULWKPHWLF0HDQ JP 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH JP 3ULPDU\	6HFRQGDU\

6XOIXU'LR[LGH62

$QQXDO$ULWKPHWLF0HDQ SSP JP

 3ULPDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH SSP JP

 3ULPDU\

KRXU$YHUDJH SSP JP

 6HFRQGDU\


7KHR]RQHKRXUVWDQGDUGDSSOLHVRQO\WRDUHDVWKDWZHUHGHVLJQDWHGQRQDWWDLQPHQWZKHQWKH

R]RQHKRXUVWDQGDUGZDVDGRSWHGLQ-XO\7KLVSURYLVLRQDOORZVDVPRRWKOHJDODQG

SUDFWLFDOWUDQVLWLRQWRWKHKRXUVWDQGDUG

6RXUFHKWWSZZZHSDJRYDLUSURJPRDURDTSVJUHHQENFULWHULDKWPO

7KH &OHDQ $LU $FW $PHQGPHQWV RI  DOVR IXUWKHU IRUPDOL]HG WKH FRQFHSW RI 1RQ

$WWDLQPHQW $UHDV 1$$  $ 1$$ LV DQ DUHD WKDW GRHV QRW PHHW RQH RU PRUH RI WKH

1$$46)RUVRPHSROOXWDQWVFODVVLILFDWLRQVRI1$$VKDYHEHHQGHWHUPLQHG)RUR]RQH

WKHUH DUH ILYH FODVVLILFDWLRQVPDUJLQDOPRGHUDWH VHULRXV VHYHUH DQG H[WUHPH &DUERQ
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 23

monoxide and PM10 NAA are classified as moderate or serious. Each classification has

different requirements and time scales for achieving the NAAQS. To insure states

comply with these requirements and time lines, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is

required. Actions must conform with the SIP; this process is called conformity. The

Maglev Program would fall under the requirements of 40 CFR 51, Subpart T,

Transportation Conformity. Each state designates agencies that develop and monitor

such plans. In the case of transportation projects or actions, control measures may be

required by the SIP. These control measures, or abatement plans, help to insure

attainment of the NAAQS is not delayed and accedences of the NAAQS are not

exacerbated. In addition, Long Range Plans and Transportation Improvement Projects

are analyzed and adopted after approval. If a project is in the Transportation

Improvement Plan it is considered to be in conformity. If not, a conformity analysis must

be accomplished.

Additional guidance to determine if air quality impacts are significant is supplied by the

Federal Transit Administration and is entitled “Technical Guidance on Section 5309 New

Starts Criteria,” dated September 1999. Greenhouse gas considerations are contained in

this guidance.

3.8.1 California

In addition to the NAAQS, the state of California also has air quality standards that are

more stringent for all of the criteria pollutants and includes sulfates and hydrogen sulfide.

In California, the agency responsible for SIP development and implementation is the

California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental

Protection Agency. The agency with local jurisdiction is the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD), as the California Maglev Alternative is in the South

Coast Air Basin. Control measures for stationary sources and mobile sources are

included in the SIP. The basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains on the north and

east and the Pacific Ocean on the west. The mountains and sea breeze hinder dispersion

in the area.

The most representative monitoring sites within the alternative consist of the Hawthorne,

downtown Los Angeles, Pomona, Riverside, and Perris monitoring locations. In 1998,

the peak one-hour ozone average concentrations varied from 0.089 to 0.195 ppm, which

caused exceedences of the NAAQS. Peak 8-hour measured CO concentrations were

obtained at the Hawthorne site in 1998 and reached 9.5 ppm, which again exceed the

NAAQS. The peak 24-hour PM10 concentrations in the area were 116 μg/m3 and

occurred at the Riverside monitoring station, while the annual geometric mean measured

at the Riverside location was 49 μg/m3. These values for particulate matter also exceed

State standards, although they meet Federal ones. In general, the PM10 concentrations

are worse in the inland area and in the fall and winter months. All other criteria pollutant

NAAQS or State standards are not exceeded. Based on these measurements, the basin is

an extreme NAA for ozone (both Federal and State), Los Angeles County is an extreme

NAA for carbon monoxide (both Federal and State), and the basin is a serious NAA for

particulate matter.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 24

3.8.2 Florida

The Florida Maglev Alternative is in compliance for all NAAQS.

3.8.3 Georgia

Fourteen monitoring stations are operated by the Georgia Maglev Alternative, of which

seven monitor ozone, in the greater Atlanta area. From these collected data, it is shown

that the project area is in attainment for all pollutants except ozone. The Georgia

alternative is in a serious NAA for ozone and must comply with the Georgia SIP.

Attainment of the ozone standard is planned in the SIP to occur by the year 2003. The

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, (Georgia

Maglev Alternative) is the responsible agency. If control measures are implemented,

they must comply with the State Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 391-3-1. Control

strategies are included in the SIP to reduce VOCs and NOx, primary ozone precursor

gases. These control measures include NOx reductions from regional power plants, a 30

ppm limit of sulfur content of gasoline, and enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance

(I/M) programs in the 13-county non-attainment area.

The Georgia EPD also requires analysis of the PM10 and NOx pollutants during the

construction phase of a project. State Rule 391-3-1-02.(2)(n) applies for PM10 (fugitive

dust). The rule requires that all caution be taken to prevent fugitive dust for any

operation, handling, transportation or storage facility associated with the project. A

comprehensive construction management plan may be required for the use of water or

chemicals to control the dust during construction operations, grading of roads or clearing

of land.

Other State rules that apply to the Georgia project are 391-3-1-.02(b) Provisions - Visible

Emissions, 391-3-1-.02(4) Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 391-3-1.03(6) that is used

to determine exemptions for air quality permits. The visible emission rule applies to

direct sources and prohibits emissions from any such source with an opacity greater than

or equal to 40 percent. The ambient air quality rule echoes the NAAQS and specifies

standard methods for determining the concentration of the criteria pollutants. The permit

rule exempts sources that are combustion sources with fuel input less than 10 million

BTU/hour that burn natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), and/or distillate fuel

containing 0.5 percent or less by weight of sulfur. Emergency generators that operate

less than 500 hours per year using natural gas, LPG, dual fuel, or diesel fuel are also

exempt.

3.8.4 Louisiana

The Louisiana Maglev Alternative has been a NAA for ozone in the past, but was

redesignated as an attainment area in 1995. Because of this past history, the area is

currently designated a maintenance area for ozone.

3.8.5 Maryland

In addition to the Federal requirements, the state of Maryland has “Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution in the State of Maryland.” Fugitive dusts are also

covered under “Standard Specifications for Construction and Materials.”
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 25

The Maryland Maglev Alternative is classified as a NAA for ozone. The Baltimore

region (Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County and Howard County)

are classified as a severe NAA for ozone. The Washington, D.C. area (Montgomery

County, Prince George’s County and the District of Columbia) is designated as serious

NAA for ozone. All areas have a target of the year 2005 to come into compliance. The

areas are in compliance for all other criteria pollutants.

3.8.6 Nevada

The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality does air monitoring in Nevada, except

in Clark and Washoe Counties. In these two counties the local health departments are in

charge of monitoring. Las Vegas is the greatest area of concern for the project due to

population density; nineteen monitoring sites are present. Of these nineteen sites, six

measure carbon monoxide and eleven monitor PM10. The Las Vegas Valley is in

attainment for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of carbon monoxide and PM10,

and is close to being categorized as non-attainment for ozone. The valley is designated as

a serious NAA for both of these criteria pollutants.

In addition to the NAAQS, a dust control permit must be obtained from the Air Pollution

Control Division (APCD) of the Clark County Health District. This permit requires that

construction activities must control handling, storing or transporting of materials.

Requirements are also in place, requiring contractors to implement measures to

immobilize soil and other particles that may become airborne. Section 45 of the APCD

regulations specifies that diesel powered motor vehicles cannot idle more than 15

consecutive minutes. Additionally, any emergency standby power generators used for

the Maglev system would need an operating permit and conditions would be placed on

the use of the generators for visible air emissions.

3.8.7 Pennsylvania

Currently, air monitoring and air quality issues related to NAAQS pollutants are

conducted through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the

Allegheny County Health Department. Based on historical monitoring data and as of this

report writing, the Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative is designated as being unclassified

for CO and moderate non-attainment for O3, the pollutants most normally associated with

mobile source emissions. (Portions of the City of Pittsburgh that are not classified as CO

non-attainment are subject to the CO conformity criteria until officially redesignated to

attainment. However, there has not been a CO impact in over a decade.)

The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative is included in the Southwestern Pennsylvania

Commission’s (SPS) approved and conforming Long Range Plan (LRP). It was adopted

and approved in July 2000. Therefore, the proposed project is conforming for O3.

3.9 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

Operation of the Maglev will generate solid waste and will require the removal,

transportation, and disposal of solid waste products. Sources of waste from Maglev

operations will be from administrative offices, passenger stations, and other user support
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 26

facilities such as parking lots and maintenance facilities. The type and amount of solid

waste generated by Maglev will affect local landfills and other waste disposition

facilities. There will be several kinds and sources of solid waste, each requiring different

kinds of landfills or disposal sites. Guidance for defining solid waste is in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). This guidance, in this context,

establishes two categories of solid waste: 1) Conventional or non-hazardous wastes,

including construction debris, trash, garbage, and other refuse; and 2) Hazardous wastes,

including petroleum products, contaminated spoils, heavy and or special metals, etc.

These categories of wastes dictate the kind or class of landfill or disposal site required.

The final locations of the stations and maintenance facilities have not been identified at

this early stage of planning, thus the local landfills and contractors cannot be identified at

this time. However, it is likely that commercial contractors will be used to manage solid

waste disposal, including method of disposal and the identification of appropriate

landfills. When final location and design is completed, the local municipal landfill and

commercial contractors will be identified for appropriate methods, capacity and disposal

options.

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND

ELDERLY AND DISABLED

The populations’ businesses and residences of the immediate area around the

construction and operation of the Maglev system are the affected environment. Potential

impacts to populations along the corridor include the displacement of people and

businesses along the route due to property acquisitions necessary for Maglev system

construction. Immediate area in this context is 610 m (2,000 ft) of clearance on each side

of the Maglev track or the 1,219 m (4,000 ft) wide Maglev Program.

Pending specific design, all conduits, passenger stations and other operational facilities

are assumed to be within this corridor. The 1990 U.S. Census data is used to describe

baseline populations for each of the alternatives. Because of the age of the data, and the

potential change in populations since the census, many alternatives used various

statistical methods to extrapolate population data, particularly in the regions of influence.

The region of influence is states, counties, cities, communities, neighborhoods, and other

residences upon which the Maglev system will have some impact.

Other aspects of the affected environment are the public ways including sidewalks and

other transitions from existing infrastructure used by the aged and disabled to the Maglev

facilities and vehicles.

Many of the alternatives propose the Maglev system to be located along existing

transportation corridors including rail lines and highways. In these situations, the

affected environment may be subject to marginal impact, or the difference between

existing disturbances and those changes resulting from the Maglev Program.

3.10.1 Socioeconomic

A summary of the baseline population data used to describe the affected environment

associated with each alternative is shown in Table 3.10-1 below. Population estimates
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 27

are based on the 1990 Census with various statistical models used to generate a more

accurate current-day estimate to account for potential changes in populations since the

census.

Table 3.10-1 - Population

Alternative Total Population in

Corridor

California 945,572

Florida 2,539-34,6731

Georgia 64,696

Louisiana 47,306-54,5491

Maryland 84,618 - 107,4781

Nevada 13,202

Pennsylvania 251.845-345,2021

Ranges of numbers represent alternative route alignments;

1 Population by route alignment

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000);

(MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

3.10.2 Environmental Justice

The proposed Maglev Alternatives were studied to determine their effects on the

populations of concern according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice (EJ) in Minority and Low-Income Populations.

Title VI requires that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color,

or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance.

Executive Order 12898, directs Federal agencies to "promote nondiscrimination in

Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and provide

minority and low-income communities access to public information on, and an

opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the

environment." The Order directs agencies to use existing law to ensure that when they

act, they:

§ Do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

§ Identify and address disproportionately-high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income

communities.

§ Provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including

input on potential effects and mitigation measures.

Executive Order 12898 requires a compilation of information about the race, national

origin, and income of populations in close proximity to proposed federal projects and

their programs, policies, and activities that may have a disproportionately-high and

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 28

The distribution of benefits vs. burdens should be equitable. Some neighborhoods,

communities, and regions would receive direct benefits from Maglev system, such as jobs

and tax revenues, while the costs, such as the burdens of residential and business

relocation are experienced elsewhere. Communities hosting station facilities receive

access, while those impacted by guideways and substations have the same adverse noise

impacts, but are not serviced by the Maglev system. There are many factors that should

be considered when identifying and evaluating environmental justice concerns:

§ Demographic Factors (population age, population density, population literacy,

population / economic growth).

§ Geographic Factors (climate, geomorphic features, hydrophic features).

§ Economic Factors (individual economic conditions such as income level/health

care access, infrastructure conditions, distribution of costs, community

economic base, and natural resources).

§ Human Health and Risk Factors (emissions and exposures).

§ Factors Related to Cultural and Ethnic Differences and Communications

Concerns (public access, cultural expectations, meaningful information).

Factors which should be considered as Maglev design progresses include: the quantity

and quality of service, fare structures, impacts of potential economic investments as well

as disinvestment and abandonment, social isolation, housing and residential patterns, and

competing taxing structures. alternative

Table 3.10-2 presents populations for each of the Maglev s that are subject to protection

under environmental justice considerations.

Table 3.10-2 - Protected Populations

Alternative Protected Population

California 728,000

Florida 118 to 3,589

Georgia 34,935

Louisiana 29,658-33,3281

Maryland 55,116 to 26,514

Nevada 4,033

Pennsylvania 42,515-130,938

Ranges of numbers represent alternative route alignments

1 29,658-33,328 minority; 5,661-5,712 below poverty

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000);

 (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

Table 3.10-3 provides the race/ethnic profile for each of the Maglev Alternatives. Data

presented show the comparative protected populations as a percent of the total affected

population.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 29

Table 3.10-3 - Racial Composition of the Affected Population

Total Population (Percent of Total Population)

White African

American

Native

America

Asian /

Pacific

Islanders

Hispanic

American Other

California 14-56

(8%-56%)1, 2

7-16

(4%-37%)1, 2

1

(<1%)1, 2

4-14

(4%-18%)1, 2

28-56

(27%-60%)1, 2 NA

Florida2 2,421-31,084

(90%-95%)

40-2,038

(2%-7%)

78-1,551

(4%-5%) NA

Georgia5(47%) (50%) (<1%) (1%) (2%) NA

Louisiana2 18,710-22,615

(39%-42%)

27,988-31,110

(57%-9.2%)

68-77

(<1%)

264-338

(1%)

1,334-2,017

(3%-4%) NA

Maryland2 52,362 – 63,586

(49%-71%)

19,707-48,068

(22%-45%)

258-317

(<1%)

2,641-3,545

(3%)

2,376-3,066

(2%-4%)

810-1,234

(1%-2%)

Nevada4 9,235

(70%)

739

(6%)

99

(1%)

487

(4%)

2,622

(20%)

20

(<1%)

Pennsylvania6(74%-92%) (7%-23%) (<1%) (<1%-2%) (<1%-1%) NA

1

Preferred Alignment Only 6183m/600 ft wide corridor

2

by route NA – Not Applicable

3

by county in corridor Range of number represent alternative route alignments

4

by corridor

5Only percentages provided in A Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC,

2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

3.10.3 Elderly and Disabled

The affected environment includes elderly and disabled persons who: use Maglev

services, reside in the immediate area of Maglev construction and operation, and are

Maglev workers. Every alternative has potentially affected elderly and disabled

populations.

The elderly-and-disabled accessibility focuses on infrastructure requirements. Multiple

features of the Maglev Alternatives could affect aged, infirmed, and/or disabled persons.

Aspects of the affected environment include all access pathways to and from the

immediate area around the stations and any other system elements which transition from

existing infrastructure to the Maglev facilities and vehicles used by the aged and disabled.

These pathways include public ways to the passenger stations/terminal facilities, offices,

maintenance facilities, and power substations. Maglev vehicle access includes the

transition from platform to train, doors, wheelchair spaces and seating on the train,

mobility on the train, and other considerations.

All alternatives have identified the need for transitional infrastructure and compliance

with appropriate rules. In order to provide the minimum standards for accessibility to the

stations and their site access by individuals with disabilities or elderly persons, the entire

Maglev transportation system (parking, vehicles, stations, and other supporting facilities)

for all alternatives should be designed and constructed to be in compliance with the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines. The ADA protects

individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability and requires provisions for

handicap accessibility in transportation and public accommodations. In addition, each

alternative should also comply with applicable state and local accessibility and building

codes that require accommodation for those with disabilities. For all of the Maglev
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 30

Alternatives, these requirements would focus on ensuring proper access and

accommodations at stations and on the Maglev vehicles.

The Department of Justice's regulation implementing Title II, Subtitle A of the ADA

(July 26, 1991) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services,

programs, and activities provided to the public by state and local governments, except

public transportation services. The Department of Justice's regulation implementing Title

III of the ADA (July 1, 1994) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in "places

of public accommodation" (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and

"commercial facilities" (other businesses).

The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a proposed

regulation generally protecting the right of a worker to challenge the validity of a waiver

or release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 USC 621 (April

23, 1999).

Given these regulations and requirements, each of the Maglev Alternatives is committed

to providing access to the system, stations, offices, and employment opportunities to all

potential patrons, regardless of physical or mental ability, age, race, religion, sex (gender

or orientation), or ethnic background.

3.11 LAND USE, FARMLAND AND 4(f) RESOURCES

All of the proposed Maglev Alternatives are located in or near highly populated urban

areas. However, due to the length of these proposed transportation systems, most cross

less developed, non-urban lands as well. The alternatives, therefore, exhibit a wide

variety of land uses. This section includes a description of the general land-use

characteristics of each of the proposed Maglev Alternatives.

In general, the land uses identified in the alternatives include:

§ Residential – low, medium, and high density.

§ Parkland – public, private, conservation areas, recreation area, and wildlife

refuges.

§ Institutional – schools, churches, universities, governmental, and cultural

resources.

§ Commercial – retail and service.

§ Office – specific professional service uses.

§ Light industrial – food processing and other non-manufacturing industries.

§ Heavy industrial – port activities, timber processing, manufacturing, and

extractive.

The likelihood of encountering active farmlands or agricultural areas in heavily urbanized

portions of the alternatives is small, since much of the land has been developed and/or

disturbed. However, as one proceeds outward into the suburbs, active farms and areas of

favorable farmland soils become more prevalent. This section includes a general

description of active farmland, agricultural areas, and favorable farmland soil resources

identified in the vicinity of each of the proposed Maglev Alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 31

All of the proposed Maglev Alternatives are located in or urban areas, in which a wide

variety of active and passive recreational activities occur. These recreational activities

vary with climate, topography, public interest, ease of access, and other factors. Finally,

this section also includes a description of the general recreational resources in the vicinity

of each of the proposed Maglev Alternatives.

3.11.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative traverses about 129 km (80 mi) of the highly

urbanized Los Angeles metropolitan area. From west to east, the candidate route passes

through fully developed areas of the City of Los Angeles and numerous suburban

communities. In the eastern quarter of the alternative, the candidate route passes through

areas where full urban development has not yet occurred. Land uses within the

alternative include: single family residential (58.2 percent of the total corridor), industrial

(19.9 percent), multi-family residential (8.3 percent), commercial (7.0 percent),

institutional (5.3 percent), and parks (1.3 percent).

There are four categories of farmland recognized in California: prime farmland, prime

farmland considered locally important, statewide-important farmland, and unique

farmland. Within the California Maglev Alternative, there are approximately 273 ha (674

ac) of prime farmland, 84 ha (208 ac) of prime farmland considered locally important, 6

ha (14.8 ac) of statewide-important farmland, and no unique farmland areas. All of this

farmland is located within Riverside County, with the exception of 38 ha (93 ac) of prime

farmland and 2 ha (5 ac) of statewide important farmland located in San Bernardino

County.

With respect to parklands, the alternative passes within 152 m (500 ft) of 15 parks over

its 128 km (80 mi) length. These parks are primarily small recreation areas that contain

playgrounds and athletic fields/courts for neighborhood use.

3.11.2 Florida

Land use associated with the Florida Maglev Alternative is generally described in the

following paragraphs, starting in the northwest and moving counter-clock-wise in a

southerly, easterly, northerly, and then westerly direction. Note the figures of the Florida

Alternative in Chapter 2 of this PEIS.

The Space Coast Regional Airport immediately surrounds light industrial areas. Open

space and conservation areas account for most of the remaining land use in this area.

Smaller areas of residential uses are found along the western bank of the Indian River and

west of State Route (SR) 407. Land use south of this location is comprised of

approximately 50 percent residential land uses, 40 percent proposed state conservation

lands, and 10 percent wetlands and agricultural lands. Institutional areas do occur

throughout. Approaching the Indian River, the corridor is dominated by residential areas,

large tracks of open space, and sparse wetlands. Some small areas of light-industrial and

mixed-commercial uses are also present. One area of heavy industry is found in the

northeast corner of this segment, adjacent to the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad. At

the Indian River, mixed residential, commercial, and institutional lands lie to the west of

the river, and residential, institutional, and proposed conservation lands to the east. The
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 32

Banana River and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge consist of open space. A golfcourse community is immediately to the west of the refuge and the river, within an area

that has approximately 60 percent wetlands and open lands, and 40 percent residential

lands. Within the refuge and along the western bank of the Banana River is a Kennedy

Space Center Employee Recreation Park. To the east of the river is Port Canaveral with

its mixed-commercial, heavy industry, and tourist-related land uses. To the south of SR

528, the Banana River is a designated aquatic preserve. East of the Kennedy Space

Center Employee Recreation Park is mainly residential and open land, with scattered

institutional and commercial uses along SR 3, as well as some heavy industries and

agriculture. The Merritt National Wildlife Refuge, which includes the John F. Kennedy

Space Center (KSC), is dominated by open land, wetlands, and agriculture. Institutional

land uses are found at the KSC Visitors Center southwest of the SR 405/SR 3 interchange

and the KSC Industrial Center to the southeast of the same interchange. The Indian River

is open water. East of the river is mainly within the Merritt National Wildlife refuge, but

has some scattered residential and proposed or existing conservation lands.

Soil types are used to classify prime and unique farmlands in Florida. Prime farmlands

are those whose value is derived from their general advantage as cropland due to soil and

water conditions. Prime farmland soils are best suited for producing food, feed, fiber,

forage, and oilseed crops, with favorable growing seasons and sufficient moisture to

produce high yields 80 percent of the time. Unique farmlands are those lands whose

value derives from their particular advantages for growing specialty crops such as citrus

and certain vegetables.

Both prime and unique farmlands exist in the immediate vicinity of the Florida Maglev

Alternative. In particular, unique farmlands (orange groves operated by the Kerr

Foundation) are located to the west of SR 3 and south of the Kennedy Space Center

Visitors Center. Prime farmlands exist south of the Space Coast Regional Airport and

where the Maglev Alternative parallels I-95. The Kerr Foundation is a private non-profit

group that conducts research on citrus trees utilizing organic technologies and none of the

yield from the crops within the alternative are used for human consumption. A multitude

of water-dependent recreational opportunities are associated with the Banana and Indian

Rivers, and the refuges offer passive recreation.

3.11.3 Georgia

The Georgia Maglev Alternative land use includes significant commercial and service

development surrounded by various levels and types of residential development. In

addition, the alternative includes a few areas of industrial or office complexes typified by

light industrial and warehousing facilities.

Residential land use occupies the greatest percentage (28.2 percent) of the total land area

proposed for the Maglev Alternative. Commercial/office use occupies 26.6 percent, and

parklands account for 24.4 percent. Of greatest significance is the Chattahoochee River

National Recreation Area, occurring along a 77 km (48 mi) stretch of the Chattahoochee

River. Other land uses encountered along the proposed Maglev Alternative include light

industrial (10.7 percent), open space (5.6 percent), institutional (2.6 percent), open water

(1.9 percent) and heavy industrial (0.4 percent).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 33

The Georgia Maglev Alternative passes through a predominantly urban and suburban

area from the Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport to Town Center in Cobb County.

There are no farmland resources along this segment of the alignment. From Town Center

in Cobb County northward to Chattanooga, Tennessee, the area is less developed and

farmland resources are present in the vicinity of the Maglev Alternative. In those

counties through which the alternative passes, most of the adjacent farmland is

considered to be “transitional.” This transitional designation means that conversion of

these farmland areas is anticipated in order to accommodate future planned

developments.

There are over 311 ha (768 ac) of parklands and recreational areas located in the

immediate vicinity of the alternative. The Chattahoochee River National Recreation

Area, Palisades Unit, accounts for over 90 percent of the total parkland acres and

represents a unique “urban” park, providing fishing, picnicking, hiking, and various river

activities. The majority of the other parklands are small parks designed to support

neighborhood based recreational opportunities. Golf courses are other recreational

resources within the alternative.

3.11.4 Louisiana

The greatest land use component throughout the Louisiana Maglev Alternative is open

space, comprising nearly two-thirds, or 64-67 percent. Roughly three quarters of the

open space used by this alternative is in the segment that spans Lake Pontchartrain. This

water crossing encompasses approximately one-half of the total corridor acreage. The

second largest component is residential property, occupying approximately 17-19 percent

of the total alternative area, almost one-third (20-34 percent) of which is very low

density, on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Light industrial uses occupy 6-7

percent of the overall corridor, while the combined categories of commercial,

institutional, and office make up approximately 9-10 percent. Only about one percent of

the alternative consists of parkland. There is no heavy industrial property within the

alternative.

The southern portion of the proposed Maglev Alternative is heavily urbanized; land use is

predominantly light industrial, commercial, and residential. There are existing highway

corridors and vacant abandoned railroad ROW with adjacent fully developed areas

containing numerous commercial retail establishments. The overall area is densely

developed with a mix of residential, light-industrial, and institutional uses. Approaching

Lake Pontchartrain from the south, the existing land use is predominantly open space,

with lesser amounts of residential and light-industrial usage. The majority of the

alternative along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain traverses open space or very-lowdensity residential areas. Regionally, there are significant quantities of land capable of

being developed. However, few opportunities exist for additional open space within the

alternative.

There are no known or identified agricultural protection areas or active farms in the

vicinity of the Louisiana Maglev Alternative. There are mapped areas of prime-farmland

soils, but they are completely urbanized and incapable of supporting farms. Undisturbed
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 34

prime-farmland soils also exist in the general vicinity of the alternative. These areas are

not actively farmed and no plans exist to develop these areas as farms.

There are 12 parks totaling 34.3 ha (84.8 ac) within the alternative. All of these parks are

located to the south of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes.

3.11.5 Maryland

The Maryland Maglev Alternative is composed of a range of land uses, including open

space, commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential. Development density

decreases as distance from the beltway arterial highways increases. Baltimore and

Washington, D.C. are characterized by high-density residential, industrial, and

commercial development. Outward from these urban areas, development becomes more

residential. The PWRC, the BARC Section of Fort George G. Meade, and major river

floodplains provide large areas of undeveloped or sparsely developed land. Within the

alternative of all classes of land use, open space has the highest acreage, due to the

presence of the PWRC and the BARC.

As part of the State Comprehensive Plan, Maryland has implemented the Neighborhood

Conservation and Smart Growth initiative. Each county in Maryland has designated

special Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) where development is encouraged and where,

generally, development already exists. The main objective of the Smart Growth Initiative

is to preserve natural and rural areas by discouraging development in those areas. The

availability of state funds for public development projects is tied to the PFAs. The

majority of the Maglev Alternative is located within PFAs.

The Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law regulates development activity within

304.8 m (1,000 ft) of tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay. These restrictions were

implemented to improve and protect water quality and conserve fish, wildlife, and plant

habitats. Maryland’s Maglev Alternative crosses land within the Chesapeake Bay

Critical Area.

Farmland is not prevalent in the immediate vicinity of the alternative. The notable

exception is the large assemblage of experimental farmlands and research facilities at the

BARC in Prince Georges County just outside of the Capital Beltway.

There are several large county parks within the study corridor. Bordering the alternative

along I-95 in Savage is Savage Park. Further south, also bordering I-95, is a large tract of

land comprising T. Howard Duckett Watershed Park. In the southern portion of the

alternative, on the border between Washington, D.C., and Prince Georges County, is

Colmar Manor Community Park. In addition to these relatively large county parks, there

are several smaller county parks throughout the Maryland Maglev Alternative.

The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, a federally owned property, has a section open to

the public, offering hiking and biking trails and hunting. There are other federally owned

parcels in the vicinity of the alternative that also provide recreational opportunities to the

public.

The Baltimore-Washington Parkway, a Section 4(f) resource, is located within the

Maryland Alternative study corridor. The Parkway is under the administration of the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 35

National Park Service and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The

Parkway has also been nominated as a Scenic By-way in the State of Maryland. By late

fall or early winter of 2001, the National Park Service will have completed a

comprehensive rehabilitation of both the Parkway and extensive portions of the

surrounding parklands. This 15-year project will ensure that the parkway will be

perpetuated as a scenic parkway.

3.11.6 Nevada

Just over 10 percent of the Nevada Alternative is developed. The developed area

primarily includes the easterly 8 km (5 mi) of the Maglev Alternative within the urban or

urbanizing area of the Las Vegas Valley. Commercial land use occupies approximately

10 percent of the corridor, followed by residential (5 percent), industrial (3 percent),

transportation/communication/utility corridors (1 percent), and non-profit community

resources (1 percent). The remainder of the alternative is comprised of a healthy desert

held in public ownership.

In addition to Las Vegas, nodes of development occur in the unincorporated communities

of Primm, Jean, and Sloan. Primm is immediately east of the California-Nevada border.

Development in Primm is almost entirely commercial, including three hotel/casinos and a

discount shopping mall. Residential land use consists of one mobile home park. The

remaining land is vacant and held in both public and private ownership. Jean is located

16 km (10 mi) east of Primm. Land use within the alternative is made up of two

hotel/casinos and a correctional facility. There is an airstrip southwest of the correctional

facility. Sloan is a small residential community between Jean and the Las Vegas Valley.

Commercial uses are separated from the corridor by a 30 m (100 ft)-wide strip of vacant

land. The nearest residential uses are approximately 457 m (1,500 ft) northwesterly of

the centerline of the proposed alignment. Surrounding lands are predominantly federally

owned and not planned for release.

The majority of the Nevada Maglev Alternative is either developed land in and around

Las Vegas, or open desert. There are no known or identified farmlands within the

alternative.

Recreational opportunities and parklands in the vicinity of the proposed Nevada Maglev

corridor are limited primarily to golf courses and recreational trails. Clark County has

formed the Southern Nevada Regional Trails Partnership to study and develop a

comprehensive plan for recreational trails. One of the goals of the partnership is to

develop trails that utilize the proposed alternative right-of-way and that incorporate the

planned intermodal transfer station.

3.11.7 Pennsylvania

Land use within the Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative is approximately 60.8 percent open

space. The next-most-prevalent land-use type within the alternative is residential, which

occupies approximately 23.0 percent of the alternative. Commercial land use occupies

7.7 percent, followed by heavy industrial at 3.8 percent, parklands at 2.8 percent, light

industrial at 1.5 percent, and, lastly, institutional at 0.2 percent.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 36

Areas of prime-farmland soils and Agricultural Security Areas exist within the immediate

vicinity of the proposed alternative. Agriculture Security Areas consist of agricultural

land of at least 101.7 ha (250 ac) under the ownership of one or more persons. No unique

or locally important farmland soils are located within the proposed alternative.

Recreational resources within the Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative include numerous

small neighborhood parks and athletic fields, two amusement parks, recreational trails, a

science center, several theaters, an amphitheater, and various recreational opportunities

associated with the three rivers that flow through the center of the area.

3.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

New objects in the urban and rural landscape necessarily change the visual characteristics

of the surrounding environment. A Maglev system is a highly visible element that will

have a visual impact on any environment in which it is built and operated. The futuristic

image may be pleasing to some while others consider it an intrusion. The acceptability of

the visual impact is based on the context of the site, i.e., neighborhood characteristics,

historical and cultural values, people’s perceptions and attitudes, and the criteria set forth

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that manages the vast majority of lands

abutting the right-of-way in rural areas. The potential consequence is a matter of some

subjective judgment as well as subjective measure as defined in rulemaking associated

with federal and/or state historical preservations offices, the BLM, and to some extent,

guidance on environmental justice. There are no Federal regulations that specifically

regulate visual and aesthetic resources, nor have any State regulations been identified.

Several components of Maglev systems could potentially impact visual resources,

including: guideway structures, stations, parking facilities, maintenance facilities, power

substations, and other ancillary facilities. Each component has been assessed for their

potential impact on visual and aesthetic resources.

There are several types of environments within the Maglev Alternatives that may be

visually affected by the proposed action. Visually Sensitive Receptors (VSRs) are those

residences, historic structures and districts, parks, scenic highways, or other public

locations with existing views or vistas of the waterfront or other scenic areas.

Architecturally sensitive areas (ASAs) are those in which the proposed facility may be

significantly out of scale in height or mass, or out of character in style or substance, from

existing structures of the neighborhood.

The affected environment includes any visual characteristics of the environment

surrounding or within view of the Maglev system and its supporting facilities. This may

include:

§ The visual effects to the motoring public of the Maglev vehicle in operation.

§ The visual effects of the guideway, stations, and fixed facilities on the general

public and the landscape.

§ The visual effects of the guideway, stations and fixed facilities on sensitive

views, historic sites, and other special features.

In determining visual and architectural impacts that may require mitigation, several

criteria/measures were used as follows:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 37

§ Permanently impaired or diminished existing views of waterfront or scenic area.

§ Blockage of views (sight lines) from adjacent properties.

§ Blockage of long distance views.

§ Blockage of natural light (casting of shadows) on adjacent land uses.

§ Compatibility with the visual resources management classes established by the

BLM for the portions of land under jurisdiction.

§ Incompatibility in terms of new structure scale in height or mass relative to

context (existing neighborhood).

§ Incompatibility of character (style or substance) with visual characteristics of

context (context is similar to size and scale but also includes historic or thematic

differences, e.g., modern Maglev in historic neighborhood adjacenct to historic

structures).

Federally-assisted projects that have the potential to adversely affect historic properties,

such as a change in the visual environment that would diminish the character-defining

features of the resources that make it eligible for the National Register listing will be

evaluated in accordance with established procedures. Section 4(f) Protection for Parks

and Historic Properties also require an evaluation of whether changes in the visual

environment would create an adverse effect to a degree that would compromise the

integrity of those resources.

Below is a summary of the affected environment for each Maglev Alternative as well as

some of the specific locations that could be visually impacted by the Maglev guideway

system, stations and related facilities. Both desktop and field verification were used to

identify VSRs and ASAs.

3.12.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative would share existing transportation infrastructure and

be visible against the downtown Los Angeles backdrop that has high rise buildings and

mountains. The route would traverse a wide variety of local visual settings. The range

includes commercial and residential areas that adjoin major thoroughfares and freeways,

industrial areas along railroad corridors, and the central business district. The route

passes through some open areas, parks, and historic properties, including Union Station.

3.12.2 Florida

The Florida Maglev Alternative is a mosaic of land uses that vary from the Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge, the Banana River, and the Indian River to the east of I-95 and

residential development to the west. Light industry and commercial areas are scattered

throughout the area. Finally, the futuristic and technological visual characteristics of the

Kennedy Space Flight Center and its ancillary industries predominate the northern edge

of the alternative. Significant vistas, yet undesignated, are along the NASA Parkway to

the north over the Indian and Banana Rivers.

3.12.3 Georgia

The Georgia Maglev Alternative vicinity from the Hartsfield Atlanta International

Airport northward to the Town Center area in Cobb County is comprised of commercial,

service, and residential development with little vacant land present other than parkland.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 38

The portion of the alternative, parallel to I-75 from north of Town Center, is primarily

comprised of commercial and some residential development. The alternative does pass

through several historic districts and passes several historic structures and views.

3.12.4 Louisiana

The Louisiana Maglev Alternative will pass through a variety of residential, commercial,

and, undeveloped swamp areas. To the extent that the Maglev remains within existing

railroad or power line corridors, the directly affected environment will exclude historical

resources and architecturally significant buildings. The flat and open expanse of Lake

Ponchatrain dominates the visual context of the alternative.

3.12.5 Maryland

Most of the Maryland Maglev Alternative will be adjacent to existing transportation

infrastructure and may be visible by automobile drivers. Baltimore-Washington Parkway

is designated as a National Park as well as a Maryland Historic Property. The alternative

passes through relatively flat areas that have heavy vegetation and a mature pine forest.

Closer to city centers, industrial, semi-industrial, commercial, and residential lands

dominate the alternative. There is potential for the guideway to cross over historic

resources.

3.12.6 Nevada

The Nevada Maglev Alternative passes through distinct visual contexts: healthy desert,

an existing freeway corridor itself visually comparable to Maglev, behind house edges of

major resort properties, industrial zones along a railroad corridor, and a clean-slate

downtown urban redevelopment site. The range of visual resources is startling, from the

Mojave desert to the lights and colors of the casinos from Primm to downtown Las

Vegas. What is not visible, but of equal importance is the sense and self-image of Las

Vegas as a young, dynamic, commercial, and highly experimental urban landscape.

3.12.7 Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative will pass through prominent vistas and view sheds

in the downtown Pittsburgh area. Amongst these views are the Ohio River, Allegheny

River, and Pittsburgh’s central business district. These vistas provide a view shed of

sharp contours with the soft texture of vegetation. The alternative also includes a large

number of cultural resources including historic districts, structures and view sheds.

3.13 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Table 3.13-1 presents a summary of the historical, architectural, archaeological and

cultural resources for each of the Maglev Alternatives. A complete list of resources can

be found in the State’s EAs, contacts for which are provided in Appendix A. Following

this table is a discussion of the potentially affected environment by alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 39

Archaeological

Sites

Few2 NRHP Potentially Eligible2 NRHP Non-Eligible2 NRHP Potentially Eligible

§ Earth Works§ Mill Site

NRHP Non-Eligible

§ Misc. Other Sites

9 recorded sites within the rightof way1 site per 10-12Hectares (25-30Acres)Numerous

Other

1 Atlanta Urban Design District

§ Adair Park

3 Atlanta Urban Design CommissionBuildings

§ Gilbert J House§ Herdon Home§ Fountain Hall

4 Surveyed sites of structures >50years old (CO-68, CO-71, COM-1572,COM-1575 (not NRHP eligible)1 cemetery147 historic structures >50 years old

2 NRHP Eligible10 NRHP Potentially Eligible

§ Stone Hall, Atlanta University§ 63 Magum Street Industrial building§ Park Street Methodist Episcopal Church,

South

§ Gilbert, Jeremiah S. House27 NRHP Potentially Eligible§ 22 Pre-World War II Neighborhoods (as Hist.

Dist. or Indiv.)

§ Pittsburgh Historic District§ Mechanicsville Historic District§ Jones Avenue Historic District§ Stonewall Avenue Resource 1§ Stonewall Avenue Resource 2

16 NRHP Potentially Eligible

§ 11 Buildings as part of historic district§ 4 Other buildings individually

Historic/Architectural Sites

NRHP Listed / Eligible / Potentially Eligible

4 NRHP Listed

§ Cantinela Adobe§ Los Angeles Union Passenger Station§ Philips Mansion§ March Field Historic District

1 NRHP Listed

§ St. Luke’s Episcopal Church

14 NRHP Listed

§ Atlanta University Center Historic District§ Castleberry Hill Historic District§ Van Winkle, E. Gin and Machine Works§ Atlanta Waterworks Hemphill Avenue

Station

§ Ashby Street Car Barn§ King Plow Co.§ Davis H.B. Building – Hotel Roxy§ Atlanta Buggy Company and Warehouse –

Hatcher Bros. Furniture Co.

§ Atlanta Spring and Bed Company – Block ______Candy co.§ Cooledge, F.K., and Sons Company – ______Hastings Seed Co.

53 NRHP Listed

Table 3.13-1 - Summary of Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Resources

CA

FL

GA

LA
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 40

Archaeological

Sites

27-35area with potential sitesPotential for unidentified/unmapped74 - 50 sites / 25 isolatedartifacts (none NRHP listed)About 149 sites

Other

10 Historical Preservation Easementsin study area16-37 Maryland Historic PropertiesAbout 215 historic (some listed)City of Pittsburgh designatedhistoric sites

§ College Park Airport§ Lawyers Hill Historic District§ Ammendale Normal Institute§ The Lawn§ Washington Union Station§ Clifford B. Connelley Trade School§ Letsche Elementary School§ Scheneley Farms Historic District§ Sixteenth Street Bridge§ Pennsylvania Railroad Station at Wilkinsburg§ East Carson Street Historic District§ Homestead High Level Bridge§ Pennsylvania Railroad Station at Homestead§ Kennywood Park§ Bushy Run Battlefield§ Brush Hill

Historic/Architectural Sites

NRHP Listed / Eligible / Potentially Eligible

3-12 NRHP Listed

§ Baltimore-Washington Parkway (National

Park)

§ Don S. S Goodloe House§ Howard Street Tunnel§ Hyattsville Historic District§ Mt. Rainer Historic District

5 NRHP Listed

§ R R Cottages§ West Side School§ US Court House and post Office§ Las Vegas High School§ J. Dayton Smith House

NRHP Listed

§ Allegheny West Historic District§ Manchester Historic District§ Mexican War Streets Historic District§ Deutschtown Historic District§ Monongahela Incline§ Pittsburgh & Erie Railroad Complex§ Eberhardt & Ober Brewery§ 40th Street Bridge§ Schiller Elementary School§ Pennsylvania Railroad Station at Pittsburgh

Table 3.13-1 - Summary of Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Resources (continued)

MD

NV

PA

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 41

3.13.1 Historic and Architectural Resources

Any buildings, structures or sites that are on, or eligible for, the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP) and/or fit within the guidelines of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, and are within an area of direct disturbance from project

development, are part of the affected environment. The Register is this country’s basic

inventory of historic resources and is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The list

includes sites, districts, buildings, objects, and archaeological resources. Listees possess

historic significance in one or more of the following areas:

§ Have an association with events or trends significant to broad patterns of

history.

§ Are associated with persons significant in our past.

§ Represent a type, period or method of construction, association with a master

designer or distinguished group or collection of resources such as a historic

district.

§ Yield or have the potential to yield archaeological information important to

history or pre-history.

The listed properties are not just of national importance, most are significant at the State

or local level. It is important to note that the protection of Section 106 extends to

properties that possess significance but have not yet been listed or formally determined

eligible for listing. Even properties that have not yet been discovered (such as

archaeological properties), but that possess significance are subject to Section 106

review.

Special protection for historic resources is provided by Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act of 1966. Section 106 requires an affirmative search for resources that may be

historic, whether architectural or archaeological. The Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) (36 CFR 800) guidelines prescribe the process required to identify

properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to identify and

implement mitigation measures that reduce or avoid impacts on those properties.

Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act (49 USC 303) precludes DOT funding of projects

which use historic properties, unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and

prudent alternative to such use, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize

harm to the property resulting from such use. Use under Section 4(f) includes both direct

impacts (acquisition of property) and substantial indirect impacts that greatly diminish

the resources. Section 106 and/or Section 4(f) analysis will be initiated for Maglev

alternatives as part of more detailed design and engineering.

In addition to Federally protected resources, each state has resources that are considered

protected. These resources are identified on state lists and have similar protective

covenants to allow for their identification and preservation. Although the consideration

of impacts to these resources are not under Federal regulations they are none-the-less

significant resources and do receive consideration within the planning process.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 42

3.13.2 Archaeological Resources

The affected environment for archaeological sites consists of any place where the project

will result in the surface and subsurface disturbance of the soil on which a property or site

fits. This primarily applies to the areas that will require new right-of-way and the

locations of the support piers. In addition, proposed passenger stations, substations, the

maintenance facility, and potential staging areas all have the potential for having impacts

to significant archaeological sites. These sites are identified at the National level and are

protected. Similar to historical structures, there are archaeological resources that are

significant at the State level. These State level resources are also considered in the

planning process.

3.13.3 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources include any prehistoric or historic district, site building, structure, or

object resulting from, or modified by, human activity. Cultural resources could also

include potential traditional cultural properties, i.e., properties associated with the cultural

practices or beliefs of a living community that are (1) rooted in that community’s history,

and (2) important in maintaining the cultural identity of the community.

Under Federal regulation, cultural resources designated as historic properties warrant

consideration with regard to potential adverse impacts resulting from proposed Federal

actions. A cultural resource is a historic property if its attributes make it eligible for

listing or it is formally listed on the NRHP.

3.13.4 California

A very limited number of historic, architectural, and archaeological resources are within

the California Maglev Alternative. There are sixteen historic resources that could be

disturbed by the Maglev system. The most prominent is Union Station that is already a

transportation site with existing and planned mass-transportation infrastructure and

disturbance. There are a few archaeological resources known to exist along the route that

are not displayed on maps to protect the location.

3.13.5 Florida

There is one site listed in the NRHP, a church on Merritt Island with historically

significant context and features. There are two sites that are considered to be potentially

eligible for listing in the National Register. Both sites, the Savannah’s and an un-named

site, each consist largely of a scatter of St. John’s ceramic and sand-tempered shards.

3.13.6 Georgia

There are 14 NRHP-listed sites within the Georgia Maglev Alternative including two

historic districts, 25 potentially eligible historic districts and two potentially eligible

individual resources. In addition there are numerous State-recognized resources

including one Atlanta Urban Design District and three Atlanta Urban Design

Commission Buildings. While no intensive archaeological investigations have been

performed for this program, site file research established that nine archaeological sites
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 43

and a cemetery have been previously recorded within the proposed right-of-way. Of

these nine sites, none that still exist are considered eligible for NRHP.

3.13.7 Louisiana

Downtown New Orleans has one of the densest clusters of historic building in the U.S.

There are a total of 57 NRHP-listed sites/properties located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the

Louisiana Maglev Alternative. There are nine historic districts, two historic vessels, 35

historic buildings, four historic cemeteries, one historic housing project, one historic

monument, one historic powder magazine, one set of historic row houses, one historic

streetcar line and barn, and one lighthouse. There are 176 historic structures greater than

50 years old within the alternative; the great majority of these buildings are 1950 tract

homes that are not eligible for inclusion in the Register. There are numerous previously

recorded prehistoric and historic sites, including mound sites within one mile of the

alternative.

3.13.8 Maryland

There are several historical sites within the Maryland Maglev Alternative that includes 23

NRHP listed sites. The study area includes the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, a

registered site, which transects property along several historically significant districts,

and passes historic structures, properties and facilities. Twenty-four Maryland historic

properties and ten historical easements also exist within the area. Known archaeological

sites (92) are fairly evenly distributed throughout the alternative and there is also a

significant amount of acreage. The heaviest concentrations occur in the vicinity of BWI

Airport, Fort George G. Meade, and the BARC.

3.13.9 Nevada

Historic resources in the Nevada Maglev Alternative include artifact scatters, numerous

railroad camps, railroad berms, historic dumps, a pipeline, and five buildings on the

NRHP. Only 19 of these sites are within 100 m (300 ft) of the alternative. There are a

total of 54 sites and 25 isolated artifacts within 915 m (3,000 ft) of the alternative. These

are a variety of prehistoric sites, including rock shelters, temporary campsites, a rock

oven, an obsidian quarry, and a lithic workshop. It is likely that the alternative will also

include areas of cultural value to the Native Americans whose ancestors inhabited the

area. Several tribes that have cultural affiliation with the alternative have been identified.

These tribes (and one pan-Indian organization) include the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe,

Moapa Paiute Tribe, Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes (Chemehuevi),

and the Las Vegas Indian Center.

3.13.10 Pennsylvania

There are 215 previously recorded historic sites within the Pennsylvania Maglev

Alternative. There are several large, listed, historic districts including Allegheny West,

Manchester, Mexican War Streets, and Deutschtown Historic Districts. NRHP-listed

properties in the alternative include the Monongahela Incline, the Pittsburgh and Lake

Erie Railroad complex, the Eberhardt and Ober Brewery, the 40th Street Bridge, and the

Schiller Elementary School. There are 149 previously recorded archaeological sites.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 44

3.14 TRANSPORTATION

Through October 1999, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as

reported in the Wall Street Journal in December 1999, delays in U.S. airports have

increased 22.6 percent compared to the same period in 1998. Passenger complaints have

more than doubled in 1999 to record levels, according to DOT's Air Travel Consumer

Report. Complaints filed with the government over delays and cancellations have more

than tripled. Only one runway was built on a major east coast airport in the 1990s, and

that opened December 3, 1999 in Philadelphia. "Just as we had an energy crisis, we now

have an aviation crisis," says the president of United Airlines, which increased its flights

at its Dulles hub by 60 percent this year.

Each alternative has a wide range of transportation resources. For convenience, these

resources can be divided into roadways, airports, rail, and miscellaneous. Roadways

include Federal and State roadways. Airports include only those that are significant to

the area. Rail resources are defined as both passenger and freight facilities.

Miscellaneous transportation resources encompass bus service and ports.

Each alternative addresses some local transportation-related problems. These problems

include, but are not limited to, congestion, capacity issues, and air quality. The

transportation related problems are discussed for each alternative.

3.14.1 California

Roadways

Major freeways cross all or portions of the California Maglev Alternative. Major eastwest freeways include the Century Freeway (I-105), the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10),

the Ventura and Foothill Freeways (SR 134/I-210), the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10),

the Pomona Freeway (SR 60), and the Riverside Freeway (SR 91). Major north-south

freeways include the San Diego Freeway (I-405), the Harbor/Pasadena Freeway (I110/SR 110), the Glendale Freeway (SR 2), the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605), the

Orange Freeway (SR 57), the Chino Valley Freeway (SR 71), the Ontario Freeway (I-15),

and I-215. Overall, the freeway network is approaching capacity and cannot keep pace

with travel demand. Annual motor vehicle travel in the alternative is projected to range

between 254 and 260 billion km (158 and 162 billion mi) in the year 2020, based on fuel

consumption estimates included in the Energy section.

Airports

Two major regional airports are located within the California alternative: LAX and ONT.

Both are under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles World Airports, an agency of the City

of Los Angeles. LAX is one of the busiest airports in the world and is expected to see a

75 percent growth in millions-of-air-passengers (MAP) by 2020. The MAP for ONT is

expected to grow 139 perent by 2020. The former March Air Reserve Base is to be

converted to an air-cargo facility, with an expected one million passengers by 2020.

Rail

Light-rail transit service is provided by the Green Line that traverses east-west through

southern Los Angeles County from the LAX area, connecting with the north-south Blue
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 45

Line, which provides rail service from Long Beach south of the alternative area into

Union Station. The Red Line subway intersects the Blue Line in downtown Los Angeles

and serves the area from downtown northward to North Hollywood. Metrolink

commuter rail service is provided on area railroad lines running from Union Station

eastward to Riverside County; north through Burbank and Burbank Airport, to Santa

Clarita, Ventura and Palmdale; eastward in the I-10 corridor to El Monte and San

Bernardino; and south to Orange County. Intercity rail service leading north, south, and

east is provided by Amtrak from Union Station.

Miscellaneous

Bus transit service is provided throughout the entire study area, including major

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) services emanating from Union Station.

Additional regional bus transit service within the alternative is provided by Foothill

Transit in eastern Los Angeles County, Omnitrans in San Bernardino County, and

Riverside Transit Authority in Riverside County. Municipal bus operators also provide

transit service in portions of the alternative.

Transportation-related Problems

Substantial growth in employment and population is anticipated within the California

Alternative. Much of this growth is projected to occur in the less urbanized areas of the

region (e.g., in eastern San Bernardino and Riverside counties). These high population

growth areas are not areas where major employment growth is projected. Therefore, a

substantial increase in the number of intercounty home-to-work trips is expected. Work

trips are expected to more than double between Los Angeles and San Bernardino

counties, and increase three- to four-fold between Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Peak period traffic congestion is severe in the LAX to March Field corridor along the

major east-west freeways (I-105, I-10, SR 60, and I-210), and this congestion, according

to SCAG forecasts, is projected to worsen by 2020. Travel delay as a percentage of total

travel time is expected to range from 50 to 100 percent for all major freeways in the

corridor, indicating that trips would reach an average speed of 23 km/h (14 mph) or less.

Major portions of these freeways are expected to reach average trip speeds of less than 16

km/h (9 mph), with 70 percent or more of the trip delayed. Travel delay of 100 percent

means that the entire trip would occur in severely congested conditions. These delays

will lead to critical increases in commute times and greatly reduce the predictability of

travel times between points.

Anticipated growth in the SCAG region of the air-passenger and air-cargo market will

require expansion of existing airports and conversion of former military bases to

commercial use. An air-capacity shortfall of one-third is anticipated in the region by

2020, and air cargo is expected to grow from 3 million tons in 1995 to 8.9 million tons in

2020. This growth will affect the ability of the airports to handle the demand, and will

further exacerbate congestion on the streets and highways serving the airports.

LAX and ONT currently handle the bulk of the passengers and cargo transported by air to

and from the region, and projected increases in these markets will require expansion in
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 46

their capacity to handle passengers and cargo. Expansion of LAX is a highly sensitive

issue for the communities that adjoin the airport.

An additional 6.8 million people driving automobiles in the region will increase

congestion, slow auto- and transit-travel times, and lead to worsening air quality. The

California Alternative lies within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), a 16,913 sq km

(6,530 sq mi) area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west; the San Gabriel, San

Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains on the north and the east; and the San Diego

County line on the south. The Basin includes all of Orange County, the non-desert

portions of Los Angeles, and the western urban portions of Riverside and San Bernardino

counties. The Basin generates about one-third of the state's total criteria pollutant air

emissions.

3.14.2 Florida

Roadways

There are several roadways within the Florida Maglev Alternative including; Interstate I95, .S. Highway U.S. 1, State Roads SR 528 (Beeline Expressway), SR A1A, SR 401,

SR 407, SR 405, SR 50, and County Roads CR 515, CR 3, CR 401. Annual motor

vehicle travel in the corridor is projected to be approximately 32.6 million km (20.2

million mi) in the year 2020.

Airports

The Space Coast Regional Airport is located in the northwest corner of the Florida

Alternative.

Rail

Freight transport within the Florida Alternative occurs on the Florida East Coast (FEC)

Railroad, immediately to the west of U.S. 1 and west of the Indian River Lagoon.

Miscellaneous

Port Canaveral is located in the southeast corner of the Florida Alternative.

Transportation-related Problems

Transportation problems that currently exist, and are projected to exist in the near future,

within the Florida Maglev Alternative are centered on the movement of visitors to

Kennedy Space Center and passengers at Port Canaveral. Currently, the KSC Visitors

Center attracts approximately four million visitors per year and two million cruise

passengers embark from Port Canaveral annually. Each of these destinations is

connected to the mainland by a narrow road causeway and each has a rapidly growing

number of visitors/passengers. Extensive traffic congestion and delays can be anticipated

unless a fast and efficient transportation system is implemented. Major rebuilding and

widening of the causeways and roads may solve the traffic congestion and delays at

substantial cost; however, it does not provide relief from increasing future growth in

visitors and passenger traffic. Additionally, KSC is a secured facility and would prefer to

limit the access of the general population to a single centralized location.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 47

3.14.3 Georgia

Roadways

The central feature of the transportation system in the Georgia Alternative is Interstate

75, which extends the full length of the corridor. Within the Atlanta metropolitan area,

this facility is a ten- to twelve-lane limited-access expressway. Between the Atlanta

metropolitan area and the Chattanooga area, the I-75 typical Section varies from four to

six lanes divided with multiple major interchange and access points. A significant

portion of I-75 within the Georgia Alternative operates under very congested conditions

during peak travel periods. Annual motor vehicle travel in the corridor is projected to be

approximately 80.3 billion km (49.9 billion mi) in the year 2020.

Airports

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport is located within the Georgia Alternative. The

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport handles 73.5 million air passengers annually and

is projected to grow to over 120 million by 2015.

Rail

The State of Georgia has a dense railroad network with direct routes between its major

cities and adjoining states. With the exception of two Amtrak long-distance passenger

services (New York-New Orleans via Atlanta, and New York-Florida via Savannah), the

network is freight-only. There are two rail routes between Chattanooga and Atlanta:

CSX via Cartersville and Dalton, and the Norfolk Southern via Rome.

Miscellaneous

There are several providers of transit services within the alternative. The Metropolitan

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) serves Fulton and Dekalb County, and Cobb

Community Transit (CCT). Clayton County, adjacent to the Hartsfield Atlanta

International Airport will initiate bus service in 2000.

Transportation-related Problems

The metropolitan centers of the South are facing ever-increasing ground- and air-traffic

congestion, with associated reduction in mobility and economic opportunity

The air-quality problems associated with the region's rapid growth recently led to

dramatic changes in greater Atlanta's planning process and strategy. In December 1998,

a coalition of environmental and social organizations led by the Environmental Defense

Fund (EDF) announced their intent to sue several Federal, State, and regional agencies in

order to change transportation policies in the Atlanta region. The notice of intent to sue

cited the region's heavy investment in highways, claiming that continuation of that

pattern would violate the Clean Air Act and would be counter to the principles of

Environmental Justice. The lawsuit drew national attention, and led to the appointment

of a new oversight agency, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA).

The current traffic volumes on I-75 greatly exceed the capacity of the facility in some

areas and create long delays (operational deficiencies) and unsafe operating conditions

(safety deficiencies) for several hours of each day. The high growth estimates along the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 48

I-75 corridor represent expectations for a loss in mobility (capacity deficiencies) for the

region's residents, businesses and visitors unless significant improvements and expansion

to the travel alternatives are completed consistent with the growth. Fast, reliable, and

high-capacity transportation system additions will ensure the ability of the region to

sustain its growth, and maintain the quality of life long associated with northwest

Georgia.

There is currently no passenger-rail service between Atlanta and Chattanooga. The

existing rail service consists of freight- and goods-movement services provided by the

CSXT system operating at speeds between 57 km/h (35 mph) and 97 km/h (60 mph).

Approximately 40 trains are operated daily. The rail line has many grade crossings.

Several extensions of the MARTA rail system are proposed.

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport is officially recognized today as the busiest

airport in the world based on its 73.5 million passengers in 1998. Projections of up to

121 million passengers in 2015 have led the City of Atlanta and the Airport Authority to

embark upon a ten-year, $5.4 billion expansion plan to meet these demands. Even so, the

indications are that the current plans will not entirely meet the increases expected in

airline travel in the next 25 years and beyond. In fact, the current expansion program is

only expected to serve passengers effectively through 2010.

3.14.4 Louisiana

Roadways

Major highways that serve the Louisiana Maglev Alternative include Interstate highways

such as I-10, I-610 and I-310, expressways including the Earhart Expressway and major

arterial highways including Airline Highway.

In addition, I-12 serves to move traffic around the New Orleans area, north of Lake

Pontchartrain. While most of the major roadways within the alternative are designed for

east-west traffic, there is one very important facility that is oriented to move north-south

traffic. This facility is the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway that provides access between the

rapidly growing St. Tammany Parish on the Northshore of Lake Pontchartrain and the

New Orleans urban area on the south shore. This Causeway provides the only effective

link between these two areas. The average daily traffic on the Causeway is nearly 29,000

vehicles. Annual motor vehicle travel within the alternative is projected to be

approximately 17.6 billion km (10.9 billion mi) in the year 2020.

Airports

The New Orleans International Airport (NOIA) is located within the Louisiana

Alternative. The NOIA handles approximately 9.5 million air passengers annually. A

dramatic increase in the number of air passengers is expected, growing to 12.3 million in

2006 and to 17 million by the year 2016.

Rail

The New Orleans area is served by Amtrak for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak provides

three separate routes that serve New Orleans. The City of New Orleans provides service

between Chicago and New Orleans. The Crescent City provides service between New
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 49

York and New Orleans. The Sunset Limited provides service to Los Angeles, San

Antonio, New Orleans, and Orlando. Daily service is provided on each of these routes.

The passenger station for Amtrak in New Orleans is the Union Pacific Terminal.

The New Orleans area is served by six Class-1 freight railroads, one regional shortline,

and one public switching railroad. This makes New Orleans a major gateway for freightrail operations in the United States. This is enhanced by the highly active seaport

operations at the Port of New Orleans. The Class-1 railroads are the Union Pacific,

Burlington Northern-Santa Fe, the Kansas City Southern, the Illinois Central, CSX, and

Norfolk Southern. The New Orleans Gulf Coast Railroad is a shortline railroad and the

New Orleans Public Belt Railroad is used to switch trains near the port. The Union

Pacific is one of the most active railroads in the area, transporting grains, sugar, and

petro-chemicals through the area.

The Illinois Central, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern, and New Orleans Public

Belt Railroads operate on east-west tracks through the study area. The tracks are

generally located between Airline Highway and the Earhart Expressway. In addition, the

Kansas City Southern has an intermodal yard and the Illinois Central has a switching yard

in the study area.

Miscellaneous

There are two transit systems that provide service in the Louisiana Alternative. The

Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides bus service in the eastern portion of the study

area and the Jefferson Transit (JeT) - East bank provides bus service in the western

portion of the area. There is currently no transit service provided to the Northshore area,

or across the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway with the exception of Coastline Transit,

which provides service between the Northshore and NOIA.

The Port of New Orleans is the fourth-largest seaport in the United States and the twentythird largest seaport in the world, with regard to cargo volume. The port handled over 81

million metric tonnes of cargo in 1997. The largest bulk of cargo imported through the

port is steel and steel products, as well as rubber, copper, forest products, aluminum, and

coffee. The greatest export volumes are in forest products (primarily paper and

paperboard), synthetic resins, and fabrics (including raw cotton).

Transportation-related Problems

The I-10 corridor studies have identified that traffic is coming not only from the

immediate urban areas but also from suburban and exurban areas in the New OrleansBaton Rouge growth corridor. The New Orleans area contains the most-highly-congested

segment of I-10 in the nation. Despite a proposed widening of I-10 to eight- to ten-lanes,

the maximum feasible build-out of this facility, the level-of-service (LOS) on this

highway is expected to operate at LOS F during the peak hour for a large share of the

next twenty years.

The existing Average Daily Traffic on the Causeway is approximately 29,000 vehicles.

Traffic projections developed in conjunction with ridership estimation for this project

indicate that year 2020 volumes will approach 70,000 vehicles per day resulting in LOS F

conditions. However, peak-hour traffic volumes currently exceed the capacity of both the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 50

north and southern approaches to the bridge. Traffic capacity on the north approach is

constrained by the tollbooth for the bridge, as well as signalized intersections. Traffic

capacity on the south approach is constrained by signalized intersections and traffic

volumes are higher due to the attraction of adjacent land uses.

A shore-to-shore crossing of the causeway takes about 25 minutes, but the travel time

along the approaches to I-10 and the connections to the central business district (CBD)

add an additional 45 minutes-to-one hour to the commute between the Northshore and the

CBD. Accidents on the Causeway can delay traffic for hours, with no alternative route.

Improvements to the Causeway are estimated to cost $500 million. Improvements to the

north and south approaches and connections to the Interstate system would drive the cost

much higher. Community organizations on both sides of the lake have voiced strong

support for a non-highway solution to the commuting problem. Strong support for

managed-growth concepts and the development of sustainable communities are driving

support to evaluate alternative transportation modes.

Approximately 45 percent of all NOIA-air passengers are going to or from the New

Orleans CBD. The 9.5 million passengers in 1999 are projected to increase to 17 million

by 2016. The New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) is planning a significant expansion

of the airport to address the increased capacity needs with consideration to move

increasing numbers of passengers to and from the CBD.

A study of the role of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in hurricane evacuation of the

New Orleans region identified the need for additional capacity (RPC, 1995). As a great

portion of the New Orleans urban area lies below sea level, a major hurricane would

create the need for a massive evacuation to the north. Adding additional highway

capacity in the corridor proved to be inconsistent with local community goals and

comprehensive planning efforts.

3.14.5 Maryland

Roadways

Arterial roadways connecting the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. areas are I-95, U.S.

29, MD 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway), and U.S. 1. All are owned by the

Maryland Department of Transportation except the Parkway south of MD 175 that is

owned by the U.S. National Park Service and operates as a parkway with restrictions on

truck traffic. All of these highways are operating at a significant level of congestion.

The congestion is expected to increase by one third over the next 20 years. Annual motor

vehicle travel in the corridor is projected to be approximately 159.2 billion km (98.9

billion mi) in the year 2020, based on fuel consumption estimates included in the Energy

section.

Airports

The area is currently served by BWI Airport that directly employs 10,000 workers. Other

airports serving the Baltimore-Washington region are Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport (DCA), and the Dulles International Airport (IAD), both in Northern

Virginia. In 1998 BWI served 15 million air passengers, BWI served 15.8 million air
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 51

passengers and IAD served 15.6 million air passengers. The BWI is currently operating

at capacity and is restricted by an act of Congress from expanding service or serving

long-distance destinations.

Rail

Amtrak provides service in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington D.C.

Stops in the Baltimore-Washington corridor include Union Station, New Carrollton, BWI

Airport and Baltimore-Penn Station.

The Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) Penn line provides commuter service over the

Amtrak line between Cecil County, Maryland and Union Station in Washington, D.C.

Among the major stops in Maryland are stations at BWI Airport and Baltimore-Penn

Station.

MARC Camden line commuter service between Washington's Union Station and

Camden Station in downtown Baltimore is provided over CSX owned right-of-way.

Class-1 rail-freight services are provided in Maryland by the CSX Railroad and the

Norfolk Southern Railroad.

Average weekday boardings for the MARC Commuter Rail system between the

Washington and Baltimore in 1999 were nearly 15,500 per day on both the Penn and

Camden lines. An additional 5,300 riders are served on the MARC Brunswick line which

operates between Washington D.C. and Martinsburg, West Virginia.

Miscellaneous

The Mass Transit Administration (MTA) serves the Baltimore, Maryland area with bus

service. MTA operates approximately 800 buses on more than 60 routes. The

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) serves the Washington,

D.C. area with an extensive subway system called Metrorail. WMATA also operates the

Metrobus system with a fleet of over 1,300 buses on over 300 routes. The MTA and

WMATA also are also responsible for light rail and subway operations and facilities in

the alternative.

Transportation-related Problems

The Washington, D.C. and Baltimore Metropolitan areas suffer from chronic highway

congestion with Washington-area roadways representing the second most congested in

the nation. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, travel times on the roadways

during peak periods were 41 percent higher than under free flow conditions. The

equivalent measure in the Baltimore area is 23 percent. As a result of congestion, an

additional 1,238,000,000 liter (l) (327,000,000 gal) of fuel are consumed annually by

vehicles on the Washington roadways, and additional 466,000,000 L (123,000,000 gal)

are consumed per year in Baltimore. This equates to 439 L (116 gal) per year, per driver

in the Washington area and about 273 L (72 gal) per year per driver in Baltimore. Based

on the annual congestion cost and the number of drivers delayed by congested conditions,

the annual cost of congestion per driver is $1,260 per year in Washington and $780 per

driver, per year in Baltimore. For all measures of congestion, the Washington, D.C. area
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 52

ranks 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the nation while Baltimore ranks 14th, 15th or 16th in the

nation.

The effects of congestion are widespread and affect the mobility of people and goods.

Congestion results in increased travel time, increased fuel consumption in stop-and-go

traffic and lost productivity for passenger- and freight-moving vehicles. Congestion also

means that goods shipped on the highways do not arrive in time, or businesses must keep

more inventory to accommodate unreliable delivery schedules. All of this results in a

higher cost for goods and services and the area being less competitive in the marketplace.

According to information obtained from the Metropolitan Washington Council of

Government, the Washington Metropolitan region exceeds the Federal Air Quality

Standards for one air pollutant: ground-level ozone or smog. The Washington, D.C. area

is considered a serious non-attainment area.

On average, since 1990, the Washington metropolitan area has exceeded the one-hour

ozone standard six days every summer. Federal law permits an average of one

exceedance per summer at a monitor location. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

required the Washington metropolitan area to reduce ozone levels and meet the one-hour

health standard by November 1999. Ozone-causing pollutants from other areas of the

country entering the Washington area have prevented the region from meeting the 1999

deadline. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the

region to request that the date for meeting the standard be changed. By the year 2005,

measures taken locally by states outside the Washington area and by EPA are expected to

reduce the ozone level to below the one-hour standard.

The Baltimore Metropolitan Council reports that under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, the Baltimore region and Cecil County, Maryland were classified as severe

non-attainment areas with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

ozone. Regional measures now underway, when combined with Federal, State and local

measures already included in the Phase II Attainment Plan are likely to result in

achieving compliance with the ozone standard in 2005.

3.14.6 Nevada

Roadways Interstate 15 is a four- to six-lane freeway that is the primary highway link

between the Los Angeles basin (junction with I-10 and SR 91 in Ontario), the high desert

(junction of I-40 and SR 58 in Barstow), and Las Vegas (U.S. 95). The Las Vegas urban

area is served by an arterial street grid that is generally of one-mile spacing. North of

McCarran International Airport, the four- to six-lane arterials cross and interchange with

I-15 at one-mile intervals. Additional interchanges are planned for construction south of

the airport as the urban area grows. I-15 is becoming increasingly congested, with motor

vehicle travelers experiencing substantial delays during peak travel times. Current

average daily traffic on I-15 just south of Las Vegas is around 60,000 vehicles and, in the

segment through Primm, the average daily traffic is around 30,000. In the year 2020,

traffic is projected to increase by more than 100 percent. Annual motor vehicle travel in

the corridor is projected to be approximately 33.3 billion km (20.7 billion mi) in the year

2020, based on the Regional Transportation Plan model for Las Vegas.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 53

Airports

The McCarran International Airport is located adjacent to "The Strip” (Las Vegas

Boulevard) approximately 13 km (8 mi) south of downtown Las Vegas. Within the next

15 to 20 years McCarran International Airport terminals and runways will be approaching

capacity.

Rail

The Union Pacific (UP) is the only rail link from the Los Angeles basin to Barstow and

Las Vegas and is currently used for freight traffic only. Amtrak plans to initiate

passenger-rail service with Spanish technology (Talgo) over the UP track between Los

Angeles and downtown Las Vegas beginning in Summer 2000. While designed to

operate at higher-than-normal speeds, the technology is constrained on the UPRR

alignment by joint use of track with freight trains, tight curves, and conflicting freight

operations in the urban areas.

Miscellaneous

The Las Vegas transit system operates routes over a mile-square grid system throughout

the urbanized area. The Citizen's Area Transit (CAT) bus system focuses on transit

centers downtown (existing) and south of the airport (planned).

An existing monorail system along Las Vegas Boulevard between Tropicana Avenue and

Flamingo Road may be extended north to Sahara Avenue within the next several years.

The regional plan calls for future extension of the monorail north through downtown Las

Vegas and south to Sunset Road.

Transportation-related Problems

An 83 percent increase in highway and air travel in the Las Vegas-Southern California

corridor including visitors and resident non-business and commuter trips is anticipated

between 1995 and 2015. Within the next 15 to 20 years McCarran International Airport

terminals and runways will be approaching capacity, and opportunity for further

expansion is severely constrained. Southern California airports are expected to be overcapacity in ten years. Las Vegas does not meet federal ambient air-quality standards for

CO and PM10, due in large part to auto exhaust and vehicle congestion.

3.14.7 Pennsylvania

Roadways

The highway system in southwestern Pennsylvania includes multi-lane, limited-access

interstate highways; multilane unrestricted and restricted access Federal and State

highways; two-lane U.S., State, and local highways; and county and local municipal

roads and streets.

Three Interstate highways (I-70, I-76, and I-79) pass through the region, providing access

to other regions in Pennsylvania and other states. In addition to the Interstate highways,

the region is served by three multi-lane highways (I-279, I-376 and I-579) which function

as the major commuter-access routes between downtown Pittsburgh and the north, east,

and west suburban communities. I-70 traverses the area in an east-west direction. It
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 54

passes south of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County through Westmoreland and Washington

Counties from New Stanton, through Washington, Pennsylvania to Wheeling, West

Virginia. At New Stanton, I-70 merges into I-76 and follows it east to Breezewood,

Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where it splits from I-76 and continues east to

Baltimore, Maryland. I-76 is another east-west interstate that runs through Pennsylvania

from New Jersey to Ohio. I-76 in Pennsylvania is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and as

such is administered, operated and maintained by the Pennsylvania Turnpike

Commission. I-76 splits from I-70 in New Stanton, Westmoreland County, passes east

and north of Pittsburgh in Allegheny County, then passes through Butler, Beaver and

Lawrence Counties into Ohio south of Youngstown.

I-79 is the major north-south Interstate in the region. It passes into Greene County near

Morgantown, West Virginia, through Washington County, and west of Pittsburgh in

Allegheny County, then north through Butler County and on to its terminus in Erie. It

intersects with I-70 in central Washington County and I-76 in northern Allegheny and

southern Butler Counties. I-279 provides access between downtown and both the

western and northern suburbs. The western segment of I-279 (Parkway West) begins at

the Fort Pitt Bridge and continues to its terminus at I-79. I-376 (Parkway East) provides

access between downtown and the eastern suburbs of Forest Hills and Monroeville. I579 consists of the multi-lane Veterans Bridge over the Allegheny River and a short

section of expressway. It connects the eastern end of downtown Pittsburgh near the Civic

Area with I-279 (Parkway North) on the north shore of the Allegheny River.

Major arterials in the region include both two and four lane U.S.- and SR-designated

highways. There are numerous major arterials in the region. There are numerous major

arterials in the region. Annual motor vehicle travel in the corridor is projected to be

approximately 37.4 billion km (23.2 billion mi) in the year 2020, based on fuel

consumption estimates included in the Energy section.

Airports

Two major airports offer scheduled passenger air service within the Pennsylvania Maglev

Alternative. In Allegheny County, Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) offers all the

amenities of other international airports in the United States. The FAA classifies PIT as a

large air traffic hub. In Westmoreland County, Arnold Palmer (Westmoreland County or

Latrobe) Airport, located along U.S. Route 30 in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, provides

scheduled commuter-airline service via U.S. Airways Express to PIT and other major and

regional airports.

Rail

The Pittsburgh metropolitan area is served by 21 rail companies (mostly freight). Freight

services are provided by numerous railroads, including Norfolk Southern and CSX

Transportation, the predominant freight haulers. Freight rail lines owned and operated by

numerous railroad companies are located throughout the region, especially along the

shores of major streams and rivers. Amtrak provides limited passenger rail service (6

trains per day on a route between New York and Chicago) on lines owned by the freight

railroads. The PAAC’s Light-Rail Transit system operates on lines and operated by

PAAC.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 55

Miscellaneous

The Pittsburgh Port District encompasses 322 km (200 mi) of commercially navigable

waterways in nine counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. The Port of Pittsburgh is the

largest and busiest inland port in the United States, and the twelfth-busiest U.S. port

overall.

Transportation-related Problems

As the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Southwestern

Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) performs congestion-management system (CMS)

monitoring on selected highways in the regional system, and, in August 1997, published

their Congestion Management System Analysis, Data Collection Report, results for data

collected through June 1996, as a supplement to their regional congestion-management

system analysis.

As part of the 1997 report, SPC compared congestion in the Pittsburgh region to 50 other

major metropolitan areas. A 1997 study by the Texas Transportation Institute quantified

congestion levels and the economic impact of congestion on motorists in those 50

metropolitan areas. Pittsburgh ranked 46th in congestion severity in 1993, a 4 percent

increase in congestion between 1987 and 1993. The region was estimated to incur 161

daily person-hours-of-delay in 1993, with annual per-capita hours-of-delay estimated at

21 hours. The 1993 cost of congestion for the region was estimated at $510 million for

delay, $450 million for excess fuel costs and estimated at $290 per capita for 1993.

Increasing these costs to year-2000 dollars based on an annual 2 percent inflation rate,

results in 2000 figures of $580 million for delay, $510 million for excess fuel costs and

$330 per capita.

The principal modes of transportation for intercity commuters in the United States are the

automobile and aircraft. In the Pittsburgh region, the principal mode is the automobile.

Regional highway systems currently suffer from congestion, especially during rush hours,

and are projected to become more congested in the future. Pittsburgh International

Airport is a major regional hub for U.S. Airways and handled over 20 million passengers

in 1998. In the Demonstration, Design, and Development Plan, released in May 1994,

the highway and air modes were described as congested, which was projected to increase

through 2005.

SPC summarized the results of their CMS data-collection efforts through June 1996 in a

report issued in August 1997. The data collected for the 1997 update included 50 of 91

corridors or 62 percent (470 km (292 mi)) of the SPC CMS network. It is the most up-todate traffic congestion information available for the Pittsburgh Region. I-279 (Parkway

West) and I-376 (Parkway East), the primary east-west highways through the region,

were ranked as the most-congested corridors during both AM and PM peak hours. The

Parkway East had a Total Vehicle Hour Delay during peak times of 2,733.64 hours, and a

cost of $34,174 per weekday; the Parkway West was 2,806.54 hours, and a cost of

$35,227 per weekday.

Examining I-376 and I-279 in combination, a trip between Monroeville and I-79 takes 24

minutes at the posted speed limit. During peak periods, this trip takes as long as 58
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 56

minutes on average, and can be much longer due to accidents and incidents. This 34

minute average delay is experienced by everyone traveling from Monroeville and points

east to the airport.

3.15 ENERGY

This section describes the energy resources of each of the Maglev Alternatives. Power

supply and distribution systems are identified, and information on current and forecast

capacity is presented. Forecasts of energy consumption from motor vehicle travel for the

year 2020 are developed to describe the predicted transportation related energy

consumption in the corridor.

3.15.1 California

Electric energy in the region is provided primarily through the Southern California

Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power distribution networks, along

with three municipalities having their own power plants located in the region (Glendale,

Burbank and Pasadena). In addition, the Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego Gas

& Electric Company provide service to the southwestern sections of the California

Maglev Alternative. Also, a significant portion of the electric energy used in the region

is imported from coal-fired and hydroelectric generating facilities located elsewhere in

California and out-of-state. There are 245 operational power plants that have a total online generating capacity of 16,922 megawatts (MW), which could provide power to the

alternative. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is in charge of tracking and

forecasting energy use according to predetermined Forecast Regions. The proposed

California Maglev Alternative is located within the CEC forecast region comprised of the

counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.

Eleven new power-generating facilities are planned for the region and are currently

advancing through the permitting process. The majority of the energy used in the region

is imported from coal-fired and hydroelectric generating facilities located elsewhere in

California and out-of-state. Utilities in the area participate in power-sharing

arrangements with other entities throughout the U.S.

Much of the energy consumed in the area is for residential, commercial, and

transportation purposes. Transportation energy for motor vehicles is provided primarily

by direct combustion of fossil fuels – gasoline and diesel, with smaller contributions from

compressed natural gas. Electricity is used in a relatively small number of electricpowered vehicles. Assuming fuel efficiency ranging between 19.75 and 22.55 mpg,

motor vehicle fuel use in the Los Angeles Forecast Region will reach a projected total of

between 24.326 and 24.444 billion L (6.426 and 6.457 billion gal) of gasoline in 1999,

which correspond to between 205.2 and 233.2 billion VKT (127.5 and 144.9 billion

VMT). CEC data project natural gas use for transportation in 1999 to range between 10

and 19 million therms, diesel fuel use at 3.615 billion L (0.955 billion gal), and electricity

use at between 68 and 94 million kWh.

Forecasts by the CEC indicate that gasoline use for transportation will continue to

increase for at least the next 15 years, as a result of increases in population and VMT,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 57

lower than previously expected sales of natural gas-fueled vehicles, and sales of electric

vehicles sufficient to meet California Air Resources Board zero emission vehicle fleet

penetration mandates. Extrapolation of the CEC gasoline use forecast to 2020 yields

future gasoline demand forecasts of between 26.542 and 31.177 billion L (7.012 and

8.236 billion gal) depending on the gasoline use scenario. Extrapolation of diesel fuel

use to 2020 yields a forecast of 5.110 billion L (1.350 billion gal) for that year.

Assuming that the energy content for gasoline is 34,342 BTU per liter (130,000 BTU per

gal), and that for diesel is 36,456 BTU per L (138,000 BTU per gal), the transportation

related energy consumption for the corridor for the year 2020 is between 1,616,740

billion BTU and 1,775,860 billion BTU per year (CM, 2000).

3.15.2 Florida

Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) provides power to the region with two fossilsteam power generation units producing 395 and 405 MW, respectively. In addition to

the FP&L owned and operated units, FP&L purchases power from several other power

providers throughout Central Florida and the East Coast of Florida.

The participant estimated that motor vehicle travel will be approximately 32,569,341

VKT (20,237,650 VMT) per year in 2020. Using an assumed efficiency factor of 7.7

km/L (18 mpg) (FDOT, 2000), motor vehicle travel will account for a consumption of

4,255,991 L (1,124,314 gal) of gasoline consumed for transportation in that year. The

Florida DOT Maglev 2000 Environmental Assessment reports a corresponding energy

consumption of 226.53 billion BTU (FDOT, 2000), which implies an assumption for

gasoline energy content at approximately 201,481 BTU per gallon.

3.15.3 Georgia

Georgia Power is the major power supplier to the region, with a current generating

capacity of 126,468,120 MW-h/yr (14,437 MW x 8760 hr/yr). They have 9 fossil fuel

generation plants that account for 75 percent of total generation capacity, 20

hydroelectric dams generating approximately 3 percent of total generation capacity, and 2

nuclear facilities that account for 21.8 percent of total generation capacity. Georgia

Power currently serves 1.8 million customers.

The Atlanta Regional Commission has calculated daily private motor vehicle travel for

the Georgia Maglev Alternative to be 181,100,900 VKT (112,530,900 VMT) for the year

2000. By applying an assumed factor for average fuel efficiency of 11.5 km/L (26.9

mpg) (PTG, 2000a) for all vehicle types, over all speed ranges, the participant estimated

that vehicular traffic within the corridor requires approximately 15.9 million L (4.2

million gal) per day. By the year 2025, those numbers are expected to increase to

257,369,000 VKT (159,921,700 VMT), and 22.6 million L (5.97 million gal) per day.

Assuming a gasoline energy content of 125,000 BTU’s per gallon (PTG, 2000a), these

daily volumes of gasoline correspond to approximately 522.9 billion BTU per day in

2000, and approximately 743.1 billion BTU’s per day in 2025, which corresponds to

231,857 billion BTU per year for private vehicle transportation (assuming 312 average

weekdays per year). Public passenger transportation operations in the region in 1996

consumed 374 billion BTU of electric energy (for Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit

Authority’s (MARTA) rail transit system), and 1.182 trillion BTU of diesel and CNG
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 58

fuels for local and intercity motorbus transportation. The total energy consumption of

1.556 trillion BTU for 1996 is estimated to grow to about 1.98 trillion in 2005. The total

energy consumption for transportation related activity is estimated to be approximately

285,000 billion BTU per year in 2025.

3.15.4 Louisiana

Two companies, Entergy Corporation and Cleco Corporation, supply electrical energy to

the Louisiana Maglev Alternative and surrounding area. Entergy supplies electrical

power for the southern area of the alternative (south of Lake Pontchartrain), and has a

generating capacity of nearly 30,000 megawatts. In 1998, Entergy sold over 111 million

MW hours of electricity in the U.S. Cleco supplies electrical power to the northern area

of the alternative (north of Lake Pontchartrain) and has a generating capacity of 2,384

MW. Natural gas and coal are the main fuel sources used by Cleco. An additional 750

MW power plant will be operational by June 2000. In 1998, Cleco sold over 8.2 million

MW hours of electricity. Based on current energy use in the area, the participant

estimated that approximately 69 percent of the electricity would be generated from

natural and 14 percent from nuclear reactors.

Current motor vehicle travel within the alternative is approximately 22,852,680 VKT

(14,200,000 VMT) per day, which corresponds to travel in the region by all vehicles,

including automobiles, light trucks, and heavy trucks. This travel represents a fuel

consumption of approximately 4,837,756 L (1,278,000 gal) per day, corresponding to

approximately 162 billion BTU per day. The yearly energy consumption is

approximately 59,130 billion BTU. These results imply an assumption for fuel economy

of 4.75 km/L (11.11 mpg) and for fuel energy content of 126,760 BTU per gallon of fuel,

considering a vehicle-fleet-mix of 90 percent gasoline vehicles and 10 percent diesel

vehicles (PTG, 2000b). Projections of VMT for the forecast year 2020 yield

approximately 48,149,960 km (29,919,000 mi) per day. Assuming the same vehicle mix

and a fuel efficiency factor of 7.14 km/L (16.68 mpg) for 2020 implies fuel use of

1,794,170 gallons, which corresponds to an energy consumption of approximately 227.4

billion BTU per day in 2020. On a yearly basis, the projected fuel consumption for the

corridor is 83,012 billion BTU.

3.15.5 Maryland

Electric energy in the Maryland Maglev Alternative area is provided primarily through

the Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) distribution network and the Potomac Electric

Power Company (PEPCO) distribution network. PEPCO presently serves the southern

section of the alternative encompassing Prince George’s County and the District of

Columbia, while BGE provides for the roughly northern half of the alternative in the

greater Baltimore area.

Within the BGE service area, there are eight operational power plants that have a total

on-line generating capacity of 6,000 MW. Within PEPCO’s service area, energy is

provided from six power plants that have a total on-line capacity of 6,600 MW.

Therefore, there is a regional capacity of approximately 12,600 MW. There are no new

power generating facilities planned for the region. The majority of the energy used in the

region is consumed for residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation purposes.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 59

Transportation energy for motor vehicles is provided predominantly by direct combustion

of fossil fuels (gasoline and diesel). Much smaller contributions are from compressed

natural gas and electricity. Motor vehicle fuel use in the Baltimore-Washington Region

was estimated to be approximately 13.2 billion L (3.5 billion gal) in 1999. Assuming a

fuel efficiency factor of 8.9 km/L (20.6 mpg) (KCI Technologies, 2000), the fuel

consumption estimate implies 72.1 billion VMT per year in 1999. Assuming fuel energy

content of 125,000 BTU/gallon (KCI Technologies, 2000), the energy consumption for

1999 is 437,500 billion BTU per year. Forecasts indicate that gasoline use for

transportation will continue to increase resulting from population growth. Using motor

vehicle travel forecasts from the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations, gasoline

use predictions for 2020 are approximately 8.2 billion L (4.8 billion gal), which imply

travel of 98.9 billion VMT per year and consumption of 600,000 billion BTU per year.

3.15.6 Nevada

Sierra Pacific Resources/Nevada Power Company (NPC) currently carries out

distribution of electric power within the Nevada Maglev Alternative. Under the new

deregulation environment, the Nevada Maglev system could purchase power from any of

a number of power providers from throughout the United States.

NPC currently distributes electric power within the alternative. In 1998, the total MW

hours sold by NPC were 2.9 million – both generated and purchased. Of companygenerated MW hours sold in 1998, 67 percent were from coal-fueled facilities and 33

percent from natural gas facilities. Based on NPC projections on generated and

purchased electric power, the energy mix breakdown is assumed to be 45.5 percent coal,

35.3 percent natural gas, and 19.2 percent hydroelectric and nuclear power.

Eight new power-generating facilities planned for the Southern Nevada/Arizona region

are currently advancing through the permitting process. Power industry representatives

expect that two or three new facilities will be built within the next 5-8 years. NPC

projects the fuel-source base of company-generated power to shift from coal to natural

gas in the future as purchase of power from outside suppliers increases.

Motor vehicles in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, according to projections prepared by

the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission will generate on the order of 41.5

million VKT daily / 15.1 billion VKT annually (25.8 million VMT daily / 9.4 billion

VMT annually) on area roadways in 2000. This is up from 19.2 million VMT in 1995,

representing a 34 percent increase. Total daily gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel

consumed in 2000, will amount to approximately 1.4 million, which implies a fuel

economy factor of 7.84 km/L (18.43 mpg). Assuming fuel energy content of 132,000

BTU per gallon (PTG, 2000c), the total energy consumption from motor vehicle

transportation is 67,452 billion BTU per year.

Using the Regional Transportation Plan model for Las Vegas, average daily VKT were

estimated to be 91.4 million (56.8 million VMT) in the year 2020, which corresponds to

33.3 billion VKT (20.7 billion VMT) per year. This represents a 120 percent increase

from 2000 levels. Total annual fuel consumed would be on the order of 7.15 million

liters (1.89 million gal), assuming fuel efficiency of 13 km/L (30 mpg) (PTG, 2000c).

Assuming 132,000 BTU per gallon, the total transportation energy consumption for 2020
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 60

was determined to be 250 billion BTU per day for the Las Vegas region, which

corresponds to a yearly consumption of approximately 91,221 billion BTU.

3.15.7 Pennsylvania

Between the Pittsburgh International Airport and Greensburg, the Pennsylvania Maglev

Alternative crosses the service territory of two electric utilities; the Duquesne Light

Company serves the western portion of the corridor and Allegheny Power serves the

eastern portion. Both of these companies are part of the very highly interconnected

electric utility network of the Eastern Interconnection and regionally the East Central

Area Coordination Region (ECAR) of the North American Electric Reliability Council

(NERC). Beside the 2-138 kV interconnections between Duquesne and Allegheny, these

utilities are also interconnected to American Electric Power, First Energy, Virginia

Power, and the PJM pool. The transmission systems of Duquesne Light and Allegheny

Power consist of 500 kV, 345 kV, and 138 kV transmission circuits. There is

approximately 10,000 MW of installed generating capacity within the two service

territories.

The SPC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Southwestern

Pennsylvania, and is in charge of the coordination of all transportation development

activities in the region. The regional transportation model maintained by the SPC was

used to project vehicle travel in the corridor for the year 2020. Projections of motor

vehicle travel for 2020 yield approximately 115,792,290 km (71,950,000 mi) per day.

Assuming fuel energy content of 33,022 BTU per L (125,000 BTU per gallon), motor

vehicle travel will account for energy consumption of approximately 504 billion BTU per

day in 2020. This result implies an assumed fuel efficiency factor of 7.64 km/L (17.85

mpg). On a yearly basis, the projected fuel consumption for the corridor is 183,906

billion BTU.

3.16 PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Federal Railroad Administration has responsibility for ensuring railroad safety

throughout the Nation. The United States railroad system consists of over 600 railroads

with more than 250,000 employees, 200,000 miles of track, 1.2 million freight cars, and

20,000 locomotives. To monitor railroad compliance with federally mandated safety

standards, FRA employs 400 inspectors operating out of 47 offices throughout the

country. Beginning in 1993, FRA reassessed its safety program to focus on results. The

Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) complements FRA's traditional

safety enforcement program with a comprehensive approach in which SACP participants

work with FRA to identify and correct root causes of problems across an entire railroad

system. FRA monitors its aggressive national safety improvement program through a

variety of safety measures.

The operation of electrical and electronic communication systems (i.e., cellular

telephones, police radios, television, and AM/FM radio) produces electromagnetic

radiation (EMR). Maglev will produce electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation

emitted by electric communication systems that monitor, control, and communicate with

the vehicles. In addition, the Maglev system could produce electromagnetic fields (EMF)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 61

and EMR, similar to those emitted by power and communications systems, to propel and

levitate the Maglev train. The potential public safety and health risk from environmental

and occupational exposures of the general public, workers, and passengers due to Maglev

operation must be considered. Standards and guidelines to ensure human safety from

such exposures have been established.

The following section on Public Safety and Health considers the safety of the Maglev

technologies and potential EMF/EMR concerns.

3.16.1 Systems Safety

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has jurisdiction over all aspects of the safety

of Maglev systems in the United States. In the past, when confronted with a proposed

railroad system, such as a Maglev system or a high-speed steel-wheel-on-steel-rail

system, having characteristics not addressed or not adequately addressed by FRA’s

existing regulations, FRA has undertaken to issue a rule of particular applicability

covering that proposed system. For example, when a Transrapid Maglev was proposed in

Florida, FRA undertook to develop a rule of particular applicability governing the safety

of that system. A significant body of work was completed before that Maglev project

was terminated, at which time FRA ceased to work on the safety rule. The last draft was

dated March 1993. If a Maglev system is built under this program, FRA may develop a

rule of particular applicability covering that system only or a rule of general applicability

covering all Maglev systems of the same type wherever they may be located or a rule of

general applicability covering Maglev systems of all types. Any such rule would cover,

among other things, the guideway, the vehicles, the signal system, the communications

system, intrusion detection, a system safety plan, qualification and training of employees,

operating rules, software reliability, guideway maintenance worker safety, and

emergency preparedness. FRA’s existing rule on the use of alcohol and drugs would

apply.

3.16.2 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Radiation (EMR) Impacts

Public environmental exposures to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF are commonly

associated with all electric power transmission and distribution (T&D) lines, with

existing electric transportation systems and facilities, as well as with homes, industrial

and office buildings, schools and the urbanized outdoors. The construction and operation

of Maglev systems may affect the environment within the proposed alternatives by

incrementally raising current levels of ELF/EMF from existing electric power

transmission and distribution along the ROW corridor, or to operating transit, airport,

ports, etc. Similarly, Maglev sources of EMR will add to the current broadband radiation

background from operating broadcast, communication, navigation and emergency

location utilities.

Because the public tends to scrutinize more the safety, health and environmental (SHE)

characteristics of new Maglev technologies, demonstration of compliance by the Maglev

developer and operator with the existing safety standards and guidelines for human

exposure safety to alternating fields and radiation limits (EMF, EMR) and static (DC)

fields listed in the Tables 3.16-1 through 3.16-4 will ensure that the public and

occupational exposure concerns are adequately addressed. Maglev system owners and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 62

operators will have to assure the public and workers (cab engineers, electrical and

maintenance workers, and control room dispatchers) that SHE issues have been

considered. This will be accomplished if Maglev system operations are in full

compliance with the most protective human exposure safety standards and guidelines and

address related environmental concerns.

Table 3.16-1 - Applicable Static Magnetic Field and 60 Hz EMF Standards

Organization Static (DC) Magnetic Field Time-Varying (AC) Magnetic

Field

German Radiation Protection

Commission

1997 EMF Ordinance

----

1 G at 50 Hz

3 G at 16 2/3 Hz

(E field: 5 and 10 KV/m)

IRPA (DC) and ICNIRP (50/60 Hz) 1 G (24 hrs/day)

10 G (few hours/day)

0.85-1 G

ACGIH-‘99 (DC, 60 Hz) 5G (medical electronics wearers)

600 G (whole body, 8 hrs)

6,000 G (limbs);

10,000 G (ceiling)

B (G)= 600/f (1-300Hz)

10 G at 60 Hz

1 G (medical electronics wearers)

 1 G (Gauss) = 10-4 Tesla = 0.1 milliTesla

 Source: (BUNR, 1997; ACGIH, 1999;IRPA, 1994; ICNIRP, 1998)

Table 3.16-2 - WHO/ ICNIRP (1998) Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Power

Frequency and Harmonics Electric and Magnetic Fields (ELF/EMF)

ELF/EMF

Exposure

50 Hz

(60 Hz)

Electric Field

(kV/m)

Magnetic Field

(Gauss)

Occupational 10/f

(8.3)

5

(4.2)

General Public 5

(4.2)

1

(0.83)

 Source: (ICNIRP, 1998)

Table 3.16-3 - Occupational Exposure Limits Guidelines for Sub-Radio Frequency

(SRF, 30 kHz and below) Magnetic and Electric Fields-ACGIH 1999 Threshold

Limit Values (TLVs) based on IEEE C95.1-1999

Occupational Exposure (60

Hz) TLV

Electric Field

(kV/m)

Magnetic Field

(Gauss)

Whole working day (8 hrs) 25 (DC to 100 Hz)

2.5x106/f in V/m (100 Hz-4 kHz)

625 V/m (4-30 kHz)

10 G at 60 Hz

600/f (to 300 Hz)

2 (300 Hz to 30 kHz)

For workers with cardiac pacemakers < 1 < 1 G

For SRF, 300 Hz-30 kHz

partial and whole body

2.5x106/f (f in Hz) 100 Hz- 4 kHz

625 for 4-30 kHz

< 2 G (160 A/m)*

600/f

(x5 for arms and legs)

(x10 for hands and feet)

*

80 A/m (amps/meter)~ 1 G; Source: (ACGIH, 1999)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 63

Table 3.16-4 - FCC Public Exposure Limits (Maximum Permissible Public

Exposure, MPE) for Radio Frequency Radiation, 300 kHz-100 GHz

Frequency

Range

MHz

Power Density

(mW/cm2)

Electric Field

(V/m)

Magnetic Field

(A/m)*

Averaging time

(min)

0.3- 1.34 100 614 1.63 30

1.34-30 180/f2824/f 2.19/f 30

30-300 0.2 27.5 0.073 30

300-1,500 f/1500 -- -- 30

1,500-100,000 1 -- -- 30

*

80 A/m~ 1 G; Source: (FCC, 1997a)

Knowledge of Health Effects

Despite allegations of adverse health effects from extremely low frequency EMF

(ELF/EMF), no public health risk associated with environmental exposures has been

clearly shown after two decades of U.S. and international research, now being continued

by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) EMF-Project (NIEHS, 1995; WHO, 1993 to

2000), although epidemiological evidence is stronger for occupationally exposed workers

to higher levels of EMF.

Both adverse and beneficial effects of EMF have been claimed, for a range of field

strengths from a few milli-Gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is about 500-800 mG1 for

reference), but no biological coupling mechanism, safety thresholds for intensity or

duration of exposure, nor specific dose metrics and dose-response relationships to

specific health effects have been established to date. Some epidemiological studies on

residential and on occupational EMF exposures in the power frequency range indicated

linkage of EMF to a variety of adverse health effects, such as childhood leukemia,

depression, Alzheimer’s and MLS, reproductive effects and other types of cancers (brain

as well as to see behavioral effects, prostate, breast and lung). Laboratory studies,

however, have not been able to confirm the biological mechanism for the generally weak

statistical associations reported for EMF exposures with excess health risk, namely:

enhanced risk ratios of 1.2-3 (except for some reported higher but inconsistent ratios for

electrical occupations). Recent studies reports by the National Academy of Sciences

(1996), the National Cancer Institute (1998) and the NIEHS EMF-RAPID Working

Group Report (1998) have considerably weakened a link between EMF residential

exposures and childhood leukemia risk, but did not address nor resolve the potential

health hazards from occupational exposures. The 1999 NIEHS report to Congress stated

that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific

evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard.

There are different types of direct and indirect health effects linked to EMF and EMR

exposures across the electromagnetic spectrum, as discussed in the exposure safety

Standards referenced in Tables 3-16-1 through 3-16-4. These effects include: induced

 

1

 SI units of magnetic field strength are 1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss, but the more familiar unit of Gauss and milliGauss is used instead of

0.1 milliTesla and 0.1 microTesla, respectively.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 64

body currents at frequencies below 100 kHz, whole body heating from 20-300 MHz,

partial body or localized skin heating due to EM radiation absorption at higher

(microwave) frequencies. Indirect effects include radio-frequency (RF) shock and burns

due to contact currents with metal objects, induced body and level currents and the

potential for EMI with implanted or body-worn electronic implants, and for RF heating of

metallic implants and prostheses. The human exposure safety standards developed by

consensus or professional organizations identified sensing or physiological change

thresholds, and then provided safety factors of order 5-10 for occupational routine or

ceiling exposures, and greater than 10-50 for public exposure limits. However, these

standards focus on short-term safety effects, rather than on the public health impacts form

long term exposures to environmental low level fields and radiation, which are still

uncertain. Therefore, at present, there are no science-based national EMF/EMR safety

guidelines that address health effects due to chronic exposures to environmental

nonionizing radiation and fields.

Although the Maglev system is not regulated by the FCC, it may include commercial

electronic subsystems that are. In addition, since FCC limits are more protective

(conservative) than the ANSI/IEEE (C9.5.1) standards, it is recommended that Maglev

projects design and demonstrate compliance with the FCC RF standards.

The most recent consensus voluntary standards issued for both public uncontrolled

exposures and occupational controlled exposures to RF radiation are: “IEEE Standards

for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to RF Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz

to 300 GHz,” C95.1, 1999 (IEEE, 1999). Companion IEEE standards and recommended

practices exist for EM field measurement procedures: C95.3-1991 for RF and MW

radiation (IEEE, 1992a) and ANSI/IEEE Std. 644-1987 for measuring Power Frequency

Electric and Magnetic Fields from AC power lines (ANSI/IEEE, 1987). In addition,

IEEE Std. 1308-1994 also recommends instrumentation practices for measuring magnetic

flux density and electric fields in the ELF band (10 Hz-3 kHz) (IEEE, 1995).

The FCC issued in 1996 its own environmental public safety and occupational exposure

limits for RF/MW commercial mobile and fixed devices and transmitters regulated by the

FCC, which are more conservative than C95.1-1999 (FCC, 1997a and b; FCC, 1999).

Occupational exposures for EMR (100 kHz – 6GHz) are based on a safety factor of 10

below a threshold of absorbed energy <4W/kg for whole body, but 8 W/kg for limbs (i.e.,

1.6 W/kg); while public limits are another 5 times lower (i.e., 0.08 W/kg).

There are annually updated exposure standards from the American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for occupational static magnetic fields,

EMF, and EMR as well as other applicable voluntary professional organization consensus

standards (IEEE/ANSI). Power Line Limits of about 150-250 mG also exist in several

states, which are not safety standards, but status quo rulings of public utility

commissions, pertinent only to edge of right-of-way fields. These limits are intended to

prevent shock and burns due to corresponding electric fields Rail and transit ROW

frequently is shared with power lines and may add to ambient EMF levels.

The International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), affiliated

with the WHO issued health-based EMF and EMR guidelines in 1998 to address short-
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 65

term public and worker exposures, based on the latest review of published scientific

literature (ICNIRP, 1998). The frequency dependence of broadband exposure safety

limits reflect different coupling mechanisms of EM fields to humans, and different health

or safety effects.

ICNIRP (then called IRPA) also issued in 1994 Static Magnetic Fields (MF) International

Guidelines based on biological effects: continuous public exposure is limited to 40

millitesla (mT) or 400 Gauss, but people with electronic implants (cardiac pacemakers,

defibrillators, pain management stimulators, medication pumps) or metallic medical

implants (prostheses, aneurysm clips, suture staples) are limited to 5 Gauss. The ACGIH

(1999) specify annually voluntary guidelines for occupational safety and health: static

field limits of 60 mT (600 G) whole body for 8 hours (2 T ceiling values), but 0.5 mT (5

Gauss) for sensitive wearers of medical electronics, metallic implants or pain device

users.

Knowledge of Alternative Maglev EMF/EMR Characteristics

Transrapid Maglev. The EMF characteristsics for existing and advanced transportation

systems, including the Transrapid Maglev TR07 test system and the associated public and

worker exposures, have been extensively surveyed and documented by the DOT/RSPA

Volpe Center and its contractors for the FRA and for the DOE in a series of reports over

the past decade (DOT, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995).

The established FRA ELF/EMF survey protocol has focused on spatial, frequency and

temporal variability of EMF at key locations: inside Maglev – the riders and operators;

outside Maglev – with the vehicle present and absent; on station platforms; in the

guideway vicinity, on overpasses and underpasses; in/near control and communication

structures and subsystems (e.g., microwave antennae, central dispatch); and near power

conditioning equipment (e.g., inverter substations, switch-gear), and near distribution and

power-rail cabling to Maglev guideway and vehicles.

The rail and Maglev EMF environment is both complex and highly variable in space and

time due to transients, and also rich in the frequency spectrum. Although cab engineers

and workers in the maintenance yard may be exposed to still higher occupational EMF

levels over the work day and work life, any adverse health effects are considered

suggestive, but unproven. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH, 1997) has documented EMF exposures for rail maintenance workers on the

Northeast Corridor (NEC).

Measurements of the current state of the Transrapid Maglev system still need to be

completed; however, it is assumed that TR08 EMF and EMR levels are similar to those

documented by FRA in 1992 for TR07, and comparable to, or below, those surveyed by

the FRA in existing and advanced rail, transit and other transportation systems (see

Figures 4.16-1 and 4.16-2). Measurements will be used to document and evaluate the

system design and site-specific EMF and electromagnetic radiation/interference. The

States should comply with current applicable U.S. and international human exposure

safety standards and guidelines for static field, EMF and EMR, as listed in the Tables

3.16-1 through 3.16-4 as they develop their projects.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 66

During a site specific EIS, the incremental impacts of TR08 Maglev system facilities and

operation will be evaluated and compared to established EMF and EMR levels in existing

transit and rail systems, and to common household and work exposures (see Figures 4.16-

1 through 4.16-2 and Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2).

Superconducting Maglev Alternative. For the Florida M-2000 superconducting

Maglev, the absence of a prototype and of quantitative static and AC field estimates and

of RF radiation levels tied to specific sources requires consideration of comparable

Maglev technology, namely the Japanese superconducting Maglev.

The FRA EMF test protocol and similar instrumentation (ERM’s wave capture

MultiWave system) were used to measure in-vehicle and environmental magnetic fields

for the MLU and MLX Japanese Superconducting Electrodynamically Suspended (EDS)

Maglev, which is similar to the Florida proposed alternative M-2000 concept. The RTRI

Maglev vehicle was redesigned to reduce static magnetic fields to passengers using floor

shielding to attain MFL from superconducting magnets below 20 Gauss (from earlier

levels of 200 Gauss). The wayside levels of magnetic fields in areas where public access

is allowed, also was reduced to about 2 Gauss. It is expected that the Florida Alternative

will comply with current exposure safety standards for static, AC and RF fields,

considering the potential for EMI with electronic medical implants worn by passengers or

workers (see Tables 3.16-1 through 3.16-4).

3.17 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section describes the noise and vibration affected environments for each alternative.

The number and type of receptors that could be potentially impacted by noise and

vibration are identified.

3.17.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative traverses areas of metropolitan Los Angeles between

LA LAX and ONT. In an attempt to minimize noise and vibration impacts, a portion of

the corridor will follow I-10 as well as existing rail lines. Adjoining structures primarily

consist of single-family homes and industrial complexes. Additionally, multifamily

homes, commercial and institutional buildings, as well as municipal parks, lie within and

adjacent to the candidate corridor.

In the western portion of the alternative near LAX, the population density is between 10

and 50 people per acre, whereas in the eastern end near ONT the population density is

much lower (between 0 and 10 people per acre). These two population densities make up

approximately 55 and 10 percent, respectively, of the overall length of the alternative.

The remaining 35 percent of the alternative length traverses the heavily populated

metropolitan LA area. A total of 122 potentially noise-sensitive areas representing

approximately 567 ha (1,400 ac) are within the alternative.

3.17.2 Florida

The Florida Maglev Alternative connects the Space Coast Regional Airport, Kennedy

Space Center Visitor’s Center and Port Canaveral. Parts of the alternative follow existing
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 67

roadways, including I-95 and State Roads (SRs) 528 (the Beeline Expressway) and 405.

Additionally, the corridor will cross at two rivers.

Population densities within the alternative range from unpopulated to medium density,

with the majority consisting of low population density areas of less than 4.9 people per ha

(2 people per ac). Potential noise sensitive receptors include predominantly residences

and schools, as well as municipal parks. The total number of noise sensitive receptors is

not identified at this early planning stage.

3.17.3 Georgia

The Georgia Maglev Alternative traverses a combination of residential, commercial, and

industrial areas between Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport and Kennesaw,

Georgia. In an attempt to minimize noise and vibration impacts, portions of the

alternative follow I-75.

The alternative is most densely populated in its southern (approximately one-quarter of

the corridor, around the airport) and central portions. Further north the alternative

traverses regions of low to moderate population densities. The alternative abuts a

National Recreation Area. A total of 44 potentially noise sensitive areas representing 283

receptors are in the alternative.

3.17.4 Louisiana

The Louisiana Maglev Alternative connects towns north of Lake Pontchartrain with New

Orleans International Airport and the downtown business district of New Orleans. The

northern portion of the alternative traverses rural areas with between 0 and 2 people per

sq km (0 - 5.1 people per sq mi) (approximately 10 percent of the total alternative area),

while the center of the alternative crosses Lake Pontchartrain (70 percent), and the

southeastern portion travels through urban areas of New Orleans (20 percent) with

between 200.4 and 13,320 people per sq km (519 and 33,499 people per sq mi).

Noise sensitive receptors within the alternative include hospitals, nursing and retirement

homes, schools, day care facilities, single and multifamily residences, auditorium/concert

facilities, churches, and parks. The total number of noise sensitive receptors is not

identified at this early planning stage.

3.17.5 Maryland

The Maryland Maglev Alternative traverses densely populated areas of metropolitan

Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. In an attempt to minimize noise and vibration impacts,

the alternative will primarily run parallel to existing rail lines, the Baltimore/Washington

Parkway and I-95. The extreme southwest and northeast portions of the alternative

(Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, respectively) include areas with population densities

of greater than 15,444 people per sq km (40,000 people per sq mi), whereas the middle

portion of the alternative traverses areas of moderate population density (several

thousand people per square mile or less).

The alternative encompasses predominantly residential and industrial areas. Additionally,

the study corridor includes large Federal holdings (PNWR, BARC, and Ft. Meade) and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 68

numerous properties on the National Register of Historic Places. Mapping was

accomplished to indicate regions of potential impact. However, the total number of noise

sensitive receptors is not identified at this early planning stage.

3.17.6 Nevada

The Nevada Maglev Alternative connects downtown Las Vegas to Primm, Nevada.

Outside of these urban areas, the alternative runs parallel to I-15 and predominantly

within Nevada DOT right-of-way. Approximately one-fifth of the alternative, at the

northernmost section and within downtown Las Vegas, encompasses lands with

population densities of greater than than 19.8 people per ha (8 people per ac). Beyond

Las Vegas city limits, the alternative generally traverses unpopulated areas or areas with

very low population density of less than 9.9 people per ha (4 people per ac). Primm is a

very small-urbanized area with hotels and entertainment facilities.

The alternative encompasses 30 hotel/conference facilities and over 500 residencial areas

in the northern portion. It also includes ten houses of worship, one school, and two

municipal parks. Given the plethora of hotels in this area, however, the density of

lodging guests is also worthy of consideration. Twenty-two potentially noise sensitive

areas are within the alternative.

3.17.7 Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative traverses both rural and urban areas, spanning from

Pittsburgh International Airport in the west, through downtown Pittsburgh and

Monroeville, to Greensburg in the southeast. Approximately one-third of the alternative,

surrounding downtown Pittsburgh, is considered urban (more than 20 people per ha (8.1

people per acre)). The remaining portions of the alternative (approximately one-third

each) are considered suburban (between 4 and 20 people per ha (1.6 and 8.1 people per

acre)) and rural (less than 4 people per ha (1.6 people per acre)). The alternative

encompasses predominantly residential and rural/suburban land uses. The range of noise

sensitive receptors within the alternative includes 391-4169 residential dwelling units, 0-

9 recreation areas, 0-5 churches, 0-3 schools, 0-1 hospitals, 0-7 historical sites, 1-7 parks,

and 0-2 cemeteries.

3.18 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION

(EMR)

This section discusses the existing natural and man-made sources that comprise the EMR

exposure environment. The EMR environment is due to both man-made and natural

sources across a broad range of frequencies. Thunderstorms, solar flares, and northern

lights are all examples of natural contributors of noninonizing electomagnetic radiation

(NIR). The intentional sources include local broadcast radio and television stations,

satellite communication, military and civilian radars, and cellular telephones.

Unintentional man-made sources are commonly referred to as radio noise or interference.

Typical sources of unintentional electromagnetic energy are power lines, fluorescent

lights, microwave ovens, household wiring, simple motors, computers and hand held

calculators. One contributor that is often overlooked is the automobile ignition system.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 69

It produces a pulse of energy over all the communication bands up to 150 kHz with each

spark plug firing. These sources often mask man-made sources causing significant

interference.

There are increasing numbers of EMR sources operating at similar frequencies, leading to

“encroachment” and “EM clutter.” A receiver could experience interference when a

more powerful transmission at nearby frequency bands masks a weaker transmission.

Interference can also occur if the frequencies are close and the emitters do not produce

clean signals. These intentional or spurious emissions might cause EMI that impacts safe

Maglev operation. It should be obvious that both man-made intentional and unintentional

sources increase with human activity. Thus, “EM clutter” within the environment is

greater in an urban region as compared to a rural region.

The Maglev system may contribute to both intentional and unintentional environmental

EMR. Intentional EM transmitters are used to communicate information to and from the

Maglev vehicle and the guideway. Unintentional EMR is produced as the Maglev train is

propelled along the guideway (as leakage or stray fields and radiation). Some of the

electromagnetic environment sources susceptible to EMI are located in close proximity of

the guideway. Although none of the alternatives completed an inventory of potential

EMR sources at the current planning level of design, some potential sources and their

frequencies are listed in Table 3.18-1. If the Maglev Deployment Program proceeds, a

site-specific investigation to locate and inventory appropriate sources will be needed for

potential interference analysis. Table 3.18-2 lists EMI standards that may be applicable,

depending on the system design and siting.

Electromagetic Interference (EMI) Issues. There is a continuum of SHE effects from

potential EMI/EMC hazards for safety critical systems or pacemakers worn by

passengers, to chronic human exposure health impacts due to environmental levels of

fields and broadband radiation. Both EMI from Maglev systems to wayside facilities

(such as airport or port communication systems and bank automated teller machines,

(ATM)) and from wayside installations to Maglev (such as cellular phone ground stations

and antenna farms for radio and TV) must be considered. There are also potential EMI

hazards to rail safety-critical subsystems from on-board passengers personal electronic

devices (computers and modems, satellite or cell phones). These might interfere with

signal, control or data transmission integrity between the rail vehicle, wayside processors

and central dispatch and operation centers. For instance, the operation of such electronic

and digital data transmission devices is now prohibited during takeoff and landing of

aircraft, to prevent EMI with safety-critical navigation and communication systems.

Standards that have been established to prevent EMI are listed in Table 3.18-2. The

selected Maglev Alternative will be required to meet established standards, so that the

developer/operator can prove during the site-specific environmental review process that

the interference issue can be properly addressed.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 70

Table 3.18-1 - Potential Electromagnetic Radiation Sources

Transmitters

(Or Radiating Sources)

Approximate

Frequency Range (MHz)

Cellular Telephone 870 - 890

Satellite Television 5,925 - 6,875

12,500 - 12,750

HF Communications 2.1 - 10

10 - 30

Television Broadcast VHF-TV 54 - 216

UHF-TV 470 – 806

AM Radio Broadcast 0.535 - 1.7

FM Radio Broadcast 88 - 108

Avionics GPS L1 - 1,575.42 and L2 - 1,227.6

VHF Radio 118 - 137

UHF Radio 960 - 1,125

VOR 115 - 116

ADF 0.25 - 0.40

Mobile VHF Radio 38 - 45

45 -161

Wildlife Trackers 30 - 45

45 - 222

Citizen Band Radio 26.9 - 27.4

Hand Held Transceivers VHF 118 - 174

UHF 403 - 470

Radio Telephone VHF 152 - 158

UHF 454 - 460

Terrestrial Microwave

Communications

2,127 - 2,177

5,945 - 6,094

Marine LORAN C 90-110 kHz (LF)

Marine NDGPS Reference Signal at 285-325 kHz + GPS (L1

and L2)

Source: (DOD/DOT, 1999) Not All Inclusive
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 71

Table 3.18-2 – Standards Relevant to Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) and

Compatibility (EMC)

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards

§ ANSI C63.4 – Methods of Measurements of Radio Noise Emissions from Low Voltage Electrical and

Electronic Equipment, 1 kHz to 1 GHz, 1980.

§ ANSI C63.12 – ANSI Standard for Electromagnetic Compatibility Limits – Recommended Practice. 1987.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standards

§ IEEE Std 1474.1-1999, IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and

Functional Requirements.

§ IEEE P-1478, IEEE Environmental Standards for Transit Rail Car Electronic Equipment (preliminary)

§ IEEE C37.90.2 – IEEE Standard for Trial Use Standard Withstand Capability of Relay Systems to Radiated

Electromagnetic Interference From Transceivers. 1995.

§ IEEE C62.47 – IEEE Guide on Electrostatic Discharge (ESD): Characterization of the ESD Environment.

1992.

§ IEEE 518 – IEEE Guide for the Installation Of Electrical Equipment to Minimize Electrical Noise Inputs to

Controllers from External Sources. 1982.

APTA (see also UMTA, 1987 references)

§ APTA/PRESS: SS-E-010-98, Standard for the Development of an Electromagnetic Compatibility Plan. 1998.

DOD Standards (see http://asist.daps.mil/eAccess)

§ MIL STD461E –Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference (Characteristics of Subsystems

and Equipment). 1999.

§ MIL-E-6051D – Electromagnetic Compatibility Requirements, Systems. 1997.

§ MIL-HDBK237B – Electromagnetic Environmental Effects on Platforms, Systems and Equipment. 1997.

§ MIL-HDBK 231A/1B – Electromagnetic (Radiated) Environment Considerations for Design and Procurement

of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Subsystems and Systems. 1993.

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standards

§ IEC, 1995. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4. Testing and Measuring Techniques, Section 2. Electrostatic

Discharge Immunity Test. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Standard: IEC-1000-4-2. 1995.

§ IEC, 1998. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4. Testing and Measuring Techniques, Section 3. Radiated

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Immunity Test. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Standard: IEC-1000-4-3 1995 and Amendment 1998-1. 1998.

§ IEC, 1995. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4 Testing and Measuring Techniques, Section 4. Immunity to

Electrical Fast Transient Burst. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Standard: IEC-1000-4-4.

1995.

§ IEC, 1995. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4. Testing and Measuring Techniques, Section 5. Surge

Immunity Test. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Standard: IEC-1000-4-5. 1995.

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) Standards

(European Standards (EN) and Provisional Standards (prEn)

§ EN55011, Limits and Methods of Measurement of Radio Disturbance Characteristics of Industrial Scientific

and Medical (ISM) Radio Frequency Equipment, 1998.

§ prEN 50121-1, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 1. General. CENELEC Standard

February 1998

§ prEN 50121-2, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 2. Emission of the whole railway

system to the outside world. CENELEC Standard. February 1998

§ prEN 50121-3-1, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 3-1. Rolling stock - Train and

Complete Vehicle. CENELEC Standard. February 1998

§ prEN 50121-3-2, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 3-2. Rolling stock – Apparatus.

February 1998

§ prEN 50121-4, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4. Emission and immunity of the

signaling and telecommunications apparatus. February 1998

§ prEN 50121-5, Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 5. Fixed power supply apparatus

and installations. February 1998.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

3 - 72

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 1

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND

MITIGATION

As a requirement of the Maglev Deployment Program and cooperative agreements

established between FRA and the participants, each participant prepared a technical

review of the affected environment and potential environmental consequences for its

proposal (MTA, 2000; FDOT, 2000; GNOEC, 2000; ARC, 2000; CNSSTC, 2000; CM,

2000; PAAC, 2000). The purpose of these technical documents was to provide the

baseline environmental data used by FRA in the preparation of this PEIS. The

environmental consequences and mitigation section of this PEIS is based almost solely on

the information contained within each alternative’s environmental review document.

That information is incorporated by reference for this PEIS and summarized accordingly

below. These documents have been incorporated by reference to reduce the volume of

this PEIS. Only the climate, topography, EMF/EMR, and radio waves subsections were

developed independently from those documents. The potential environmental impacts

for each of the alternatives were determined based on preliminary planning information,

such as that provided in the participant’s environmental assessments. This information is

part of an ongoing planning process and is subject to refinement. For example, some of

the Project Description documents developed by the alternatives contain some new or

updated information (MTA(b), 2000; FDOT(b), 2000; GNOEC(b), 2000; ARC(b), 2000;

CNSST(b), 2000; CM(a), 2000; PAAC(b), 2000. These and other nominal refinements

have been incorporated in this Chapter.

Environmental consequences were found to be either similar in all the alternatives or

specific to each alternative. Therefore, to reduce redundant discussion, presentation of

the environmental consequences is discussed for all the alternatives when appropriate or

for each of the alternatives when the consequences were found to be alternative-specific.

A similar approach was established for discussion of the proposed mitigation. The

following is a summary of the environmental consequences and mitigation for each of the

alternatives. If further information on the environmental consequences and mitigation

section is desired, Appendix A identifies the person to contact for copies of the

alternative’s environmental assessments website and additional information. Additional

information can be obtained by viewing the alternative’s website also identified in

Appendix A.

4.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.1.1 Topography

Potential impacts to topography in the areas of the proposed Maglev Alternatives are

considered to be localized and minor. Construction of the Maglev Alternative may

require blasting, excavating, grading and embankment formation, which would alter the

existing local topography. The siting of each of the proposed Maglev Alternatives during

the early planning stages of the Maglev Deployment Program likely considered
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 2

avoidance of unsuitable topography, including but not limited to; mountainous areas,

steep slopes, cliffs, ravines, and valleys. These areas were avoided in favor of relatively

flat areas or areas with gradual topographic relief for various reasons including, among

others, cost and ease of construction. The Pennsylvania Alternative, and to a lesser

extent the Georgia Alternative, have significant gradient differences throughout the area.

Those contour changes could require design mitigation measures such as bridges, tunnels,

and higher elevated guideways. The impact from these mitigation measures will have an

insignificant adverse impact to topography.

4.1.2 Geology

The Maglev structures are primarily built within a very short depth from the earth’s

surface. Guideways, stations and maintenance facilities may require piles to be built

further down into the earth for support, possibly impacting the geology. However, the

impact from these piles to geology would be minimal and localized. Another concern to

geology is the impact from tunneling. The Pennsylvania and Georgia Alternatives may

require tunnels as part of their design, thus potentially affecting local geology. However,

the required tunneling design and construction techniques would minimize potential

adverse impact to geology in these cases. Therefore, with the majority of the Maglev

facilities built outside of geologic areas and with proper tunneling techniques the

potential impact to geology from all of the build alternatives should be insignificant.

It should be noted, however, that the potential impact from unstable geologic areas could

have a direct impact on Maglev. Seismic activity can cause shaking of a Maglev system,

which can damage the guideway and other components of the system. Severe seismic

shaking could potentially result in the collapse of the elevated guideway and the

destruction of stations and power generating stations.

Seismic activity in the Basin and Range Region and the Coastal Ranges Region poses the

most significant risk to the integrity of the overall Maglev system. Certainly, the tight

tolerances that are required of the guideway within unstable seismic areas may present a

design as well as operational challenge. To ensure seismic safety, the proposed

California and Nevada Maglev Alternatives need to be designed in compliance with

applicable building codes and engineering design standards that take into account seismic

forces. Additionally, the operation control system for Maglev will be tied to local

seismic monitoring stations. The potential for seismic risk in the Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, and Pennsylvania Maglev Alternatives (Appalachian Region and the Coastal

Basin Regions) exists, but is minor in comparison to the western portion of the United

States. Regardless, the design of these systems should also comply with seismic design

and construction standards applicable to each location.

There is a small risk of potential loss or damage to mineral deposits (i.e., coal) in the

vicinity of the proposed Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative. Additionally, there is

potential for impacts to oil and gas exploration in the vicinity of both the Pennsylvania

and the Louisiana Maglev Alternatives. By considering known mineral and fossil fuel

resources in the siting and design of the selected Maglev Alternative, potential impacts

can be avoided and/or substantially minimized.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 3

4.1.3 Soils

Erosion is also a concern of any of the proposed Maglev facilities. The clearing of

vegetation and interruption of natural drainage courses increases the rate of erosion. The

rate and amount of soil erosion should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable; to

avoid sedimentation of streams and waterbodies with associated impacts on flora and

fauna. Construction of any of the proposed Maglev facilities will require the preparation

and implementation of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that

will contribute considerably to the minimization of erosion and sedimentation impacts.

The SWPPP also states that the depostion of storm water onto agricultural fiels is not

acceptable.

The design of the California, Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada Maglev Alternatives in both

the Basin and Range Region and Coastal Ranges Region must take into account that these

regions are more prone to erosive forces than the other regions due to steep topography,

lack of substantial ground cover vegetation, arid soils, and/or infrequent flash flooding by

heavy rain events.

Potential impacts to agriculturally important soils may also occur with each of the

proposed Maglev Alternatives. These impacts are discussed in the Land Use section of

this PEIS.

4.1.4 Summary

Construction and operation of a Maglev system in any of the seven proposed locations

would result in insignificant adverse impacts to existing topographic, geologic, and soils

resources. However, seismic activity in the Basin and Range and Coastal Ranges

geomorphic regions could result in significant adverse impacts to the California and

Nevada Maglev Alternatives. Proper seismic construction techniques along with

guideway integrity monitoring could help mitigate these impacts.

4.1.5 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

the topography, geology, or soils directly from a Maglev system. However, it is

important to consider potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise

from precluding the Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of

constructing a Maglev system.

Since a Maglev system would not be constructed under the No-Action Alternative, travel

by motor vehicle is expected to be significantly higher than that under any of the Maglev

Alternatives. The increase in motor vehicle travel could result in a variety of

transportation problems that could lead to road expansion. The construction of additional

infrastructure for long-distance motor vehicle travel to address these problems could have

impacts to topography, geology and soils as locations for new roadways could require

blasting, excavating, grading etc, which would alter existing local topography. In

addition, the construction of new roads and highways is likely to result in permanent
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 4

disruption of drainage patterns to a greater extent than the elevated Maglev guideway

system. These impacts would need to be examined on a local and regional basis and be

compared to those of the Maglev Alternatives. It is expected that the No-Action

Alternative could result in impacts similar to those for the Maglev Alternatives – erosion

and sedimentation, loss or damage to mineral deposits. Thus, the No-Action Alternative

would likely have insignificant adverse impacts on topography, geology, and soils.

4.2 CLIMATE

One of the products of motor vehicle exhaust is carbon dioxide (CO2). In recent years,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has started to view CO2 as a pollutant

of concern. CO2 does not directly impair human health, but it is a “greenhouse gas” that

traps the earth’s heat and contributes to the potential for climate change. Implementation

of the Maglev system has the potential to decrease or increase CO2 emissions, depending

on the net change in motor vehicle travel and energy consumption for Maglev operation.

Thus, Maglev deployment could have long-term effect on climate. A decrease in CO2

would benefit the environment and help prevent or slow climate change. An increase in

CO2 emissions would harm the environment and contribute to climate change.

The net change in carbon emissions was calculated by estimating and comparing the

generation of emissions associated with electricity for Maglev operation, and the

reduction in emissions associated with reduced motor vehicle travel. The energy use

estimates developed for the Energy section were used as the basis for the calculation of

the net change in carbon emissions for each of the alternatives. Calculations were

developed by multiplying the energy consumption for each fuel type – in BTU – by an

associated carbon emissions coefficient. The carbon emission coefficients were obtained

from the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1998 report published by

the Energy Information Administration (EIA, 1998). For those alternatives that have

provided information on the Maglev operation energy source mix, the corresponding

coefficients were used. In all other cases, it was assumed that all electric power is

derived from coal, and the corresponding coal carbon emission coefficient (25.76 metric

tons of carbon per billion BTU) was used. The value of this coefficient could change

over time if more energy efficient technologies become available. It is assumed that

there are no carbon emissions from hydroelectric and nuclear power generation. For

motor vehicle travel, conversion factors of 19.33 metric tons (42,615 lbs) carbon per

billion BTU of energy derived from gasoline and 19.95 metric tons (43,982 lbs) of carbon

per billion BTU of energy derived from diesel was were used to determine potential

carbon emission reductions from diverted motor vehicle travel resulting from Maglev

operation. (EIA, 1998)

Climate could potentially affect the operational integrity, service schedule, and

maintenance requirements of a Maglev transportation system at any of the proposed

locations.

Extended periods of excessive temperatures could potentially distort the steel that

comprises the Maglev guideway. Dramatic overnight temperature changes that occur in

desert regions could result in unusual lateral movement of the guideway. This stretching

and shrinking of the guideway may pose an operational concern for the tight tolerances of
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 5

the Nevada Maglev Alternative. A heat wave in any region could potentially overburden

electric utility companies that, in turn, could result in “brown out” conditions. Electric

power under these conditions may not be adequate to efficiently run the Maglev system.

Sandstorms can severely limit visibility and could potentially interrupt the Maglev

service within the Nevada Alternative. Layers of accumulated dust on Maglev system

equipment may need to be routinely removed to avoid compromising the efficiency of the

system.

Extremely high winds associated with hurricanes and tropical storms could potentially

damage the Maglev guideway or other system components in the southern and

southeastern United States. Louisiana and Florida are at the most risk from these weather

events. Georgia and Maryland can also be affected to a lesser degree. High winds from

tornados could also potentially impact the Maglev system infrastructure. Georgia,

Florida, and Louisiana are the locations with the greatest tornado and tropical storm risk.

Pennsylvania can also be affected by these unpredictable springtime weather systems, but

to a slightly lesser degree.

Since most of the systems will incorporate elevated guideways, torrential rains and

associated flooding may only have a minimal impact on the Maglev system in most

locations. The potential for excessive erosion around support structures exists especially

for the California and Nevada Alternatives. Also, mudslides and/or landslides could be

triggered in areas where slopes are steep and unstable.

Another climatic concern is lightning strikes. The Maglev system will be on an elevated

guideway and in some instances could be a prominent landscape feature. This could

attract lightning strikes to the guideway, communication systems, or electrical

distribution system. The potential result could be destruction of equipment and

disruption to service from the loss of power or communications. Each of the alternatives

is within areas that have lightning strikes. However, the technology of avoiding and

minimizing the impact from lightning strikes is already applied to existing transportation

modes and should be applied to Maglev. Thus, the likely impact from lightning strikes

for all of the alternatives is anticipated to be insignificant.

High winds coupled with heavy snow and ice typical of Northeasters could potentially

affect Maglev operations in Maryland and Pennsylvania. These storms could knock out

electricity and potentially damage the guideway or other components of the Maglev

system. An ice storm affecting these cities could result in a heavy build-up of ice on the

guideway, which could also pose operational, and maintenance problems. Blizzards also

can affect these locations, causing widespread power outages and potential damage to the

Maglev system.

4.2.1 California

Maglev energy consumption within the California Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 918.2 billion BTU per year in 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions were

calculated assuming the energy mix breakdown provided in the Air Quality section (20.7

percent coal, 32.1 percent natural gas, 1.8 percent biomass, and 45.4 percent

hydroelectric and nuclear power). It is assumed that there are no carbon dioxide

emissions from nuclear and hydroelectric power generation. Even though biomass is
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 6

used as an energy source within the alternative, for the purposes of this analysis, the

minor contribution of biomass to the energy mix is neglected and allocated to electricity

generated from coal. Thus, the associated carbon emissions were calculated using the

corresponding carbon emission coefficients for coal and natural gas (with coal generating

22.5 percent and natural gas 32.1 percent of the energy in the corridor), and estimated to

be approximately 9,587 metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle

travel was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by between 81,993 to 92,001 metric tons

per year. Thus, the net reduction in carbon emissions for the corridor from Maglev

operation is estimated to range to be between 72,406 and 82,414 metric tons of carbon

per year in 2020. This reduction constitutes a beneficial effect for the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions from transportation within the alternative.

The California Alternative could potentially be affected by torrential rains that could

trigger mudslides and/or landslides, and by localized severe erosion that could damage

the infrastructure of Maglev system. The anticipated impact from this alternative on

these climatic conditions is anticipated to be insignificant.

4.2.2 Florida

Maglev energy consumption within the Florida Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 34.03 billion BTU per year in 2020. Assuming that all energy used to

power Maglev is derived from coal, carbon emissions from Maglev operation would be

approximately 876 metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle

travel was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 24 metric tons per year. Thus, the net

increase in carbon emissions for the corridor from Maglev operation is estimated to be

approximately 852 metric tons of carbon per year in 2020. This increase constitutes a

negative effect for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation within

the alternative.

The Florida Alternative could potentially be impacted by strong hurricanes and tornados

that could damage or even destroy the Maglev system’s infrastructure. Torrential rains

resulting in floods could also pose problems in this area due to the region’s relatively flat

topography. The impact to Maglev from these climatic events could be significant.

However, the anticipated impact from this alternative on these climatic conditions is

anticipated to be insignificant.

4.2.3 Georgia

Maglev energy consumption within the Georgia Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 311.5 billion BTU per year in 2025. Carbon dioxide emissions were

calculated assuming the current energy mix breakdown provided in the Energy section

(75 percent fossil fuel, 22 percent nuclear, and 3 percent hydroelectric). It is assumed

that there are no carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Thus, it

is estimated that 75 percent of the total Maglev energy requirement (233.6 billion BTU)

is derived from coal. The associated carbon emissions would be approximately 6,017.5

metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle travel was estimated to

reduce carbon emissions by 3,415.6 metric tons per year. Thus, the net increase in

carbon emissions for the corridor from Maglev operation is estimated to be

approximately 2,601.9 metric tons of carbon per year in 2025. This increase constitutes a
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 7

negative effect for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in the

alternative.

The Georgia Alternative could potentially be affected by tornados and weakened

hurricanes. These weather systems could result in damage and/or destruction of the

Maglev system’s infrastructure. Impacts from hurricanes to this area are considerably

less than hurricane impacts that could be experienced in Florida or Louisiana. The

impact to Maglev from these climatic events could be significant. However, the

anticipated impact from this alternative on these climatic conditions is anticipated to be

insignificant.

4.2.4 Louisiana

Maglev energy consumption within the Louisiana Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 1,021 billion BTU per year in 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions were

calculated assuming the current energy mix breakdown provided in the Energy section

(69 percent natural gas, 17 percent coal and 14 percent nuclear power providing the rest).

It is assumed that there are no carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power. The

associated carbon emissions would be approximately 14,665.13 metric tons per year.

Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle travel was estimated to reduce carbon

emissions by 33,093 metric tons per year. Thus, the net reduction in carbon emissions for

the alternative from Maglev operation is estimated to be approximately 18,427.8 metric

tons of carbon per year in 2020. This reduction constitutes a positive effect for the

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation within the alternative.

The Louisiana could potentially be impacted by strong hurricanes and tornadoes that

could damage or even destroy the Maglev system’s infrastructure. Torrential rains

resulting in floods could also pose problems in this area due to the region’s relatively flat

topography. The impact to Maglev from these climatic events could be significant.

However, the anticipated impact from this alternative on these climatic conditions is

anticipated to be insignificant.

4.2.5 Maryland

Maglev energy consumption within the Maryland Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 235.2 billion BTU per year in 2020. Assuming that all energy used to

power Maglev is derived from coal, carbon emissions from Maglev operation would be

approximately 6,058.8 metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle

travel was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 34,248.9 metric tons per year. Thus,

the net reduction in carbon emissions for the corridor from Maglev operation is estimated

to be approximately 28,190.1 metric tons of carbon per year in 2020. This reduction

constitutes a positive effect for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from

transportation within the alternative.

The Maryland Alternative could potentially be impacted by several different weather

phenomena, including northeasters, blizzards, ice storms, and weakened tropical systems.

All of these weather conditions have the potential to cause damage to the Maglev

system’s infrastructure or could impair the operations of the system. The impact to

Maglev from these climatic events could be significant. However, the anticipated impact

from this alternative on these climatic conditions is anticipated to be insignificant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 8

4.2.6 Nevada

Maglev energy consumption within the Nevada Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 1,840 billion BTU per year in 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions were

calculated assuming the current energy mix breakdown provided in the Energy section

(45.5 percent coal, 35.3 percent natural gas, and 19.2 percent from hydroelectric and

nuclear power). Thus, it is estimated that 836.8 billion BTU and 648.8 billion BTU are

derived from coal and natural gas, respectively. The overall associated carbon emissions

(using the corresponding carbon emissions coefficients) would be approximately

30,944.7 metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle travel was

estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 8,072.2 metric tons per year from reduced

gasoline consumption, and 708.2 metric tons per year from reduced diesel consumption.

The overall carbon emissions from reduced vehicle travel are approximately 8,780.4

metric tons per year. Thus, the net increase in carbon emissions for the corridor from

Maglev operation is estimated to be approximately 22,164.3 metric tons of carbon per

year in 2020. This increase constitutes a negative effect for the reduction of greenhouse

gas emissions from transportation within the alternative.

The Nevada Alternative could experience extended periods with temperatures above the

38°C (100°F) mark as well as dramatic daily temperature changes. This could potentially

cause slight distortion to the steel that comprises the guideway. Infrequent but torrential

rain events can also affect this area that could cause localized severe erosion that could

potentially damage the guideway support structures. Also in Nevada, sandstorms can

severely limit visibility during the duration of the storm. This could potentially interrupt

Maglev service along this corridor. Layers of accumulated dust on Maglev system

equipment may need to be routinely removed to avoid compromising the efficiency of the

system. The impact to Maglev from these climate events could be significant. However,

the anticipated impact from this alternative on these climatic conditions is anticipated to

be insignificant.

4.2.7 Pennsylvania

Maglev energy consumption within the Pennsylvania Alternative was estimated to be

approximately 376 billion BTU per year in 2020. Assuming that all energy used to

power Maglev is derived from coal, carbon emissions from Maglev operation would be

approximately 9,685.76 metric tons per year. Fuel reduction from diverted motor vehicle

travel was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 132,623.13 metric tons per year.

Thus, the net reduction in carbon emissions for the corridor from Maglev operation is

estimated to be approximately 122,937.37 metric tons of carbon per year in 2020. This

reduction constitutes a positive effect for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from

transportation within the alternative.

The Pennsylvania Alternative could potentially be impacted by several different weather

phenomena, including northeasters, blizzards, and ice storms and tornados to a lesser

degree. All of these weather conditions have the potential to cause damage to the Maglev

system’s infrastructure or could impair the operation of the system. The impact to Maglev

from these climatic events could be significant. However, the anticipated impact from

this alternative on these climatic conditions is anticipated to be insignificant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 9

4.2.8 Mitigation

The alternatives do not have a direct impact on climate, thus mitigation is not required.

For Maglev Alternatives that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, policies can be

developed to divert trips from other more polluting modes of transportation to the Maglev

system as mitigation. However, it should be noted that climatic conditions in each of the

alternatives could adversely impact Maglev operation. In order to avoid and/or minimize

the potential impacts that could result from these weather phenomena, Maglev engineers

should design the proposed system to withstand the climatic forces that are associated

with the selected location. It is impossible to completely avoid potential climatic impacts

as each area of the country is affected by different weather phenomena. However,

constructing the planned system in an area that is least prone to severe weather conditions

can substantially minimize impacts.

4.2.9 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

the climate directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider potential

impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the Maglev

Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

Travel by motor vehicle is expected to be significantly higher under the No-Action

Alternative, than that under any of the Maglev Alternatives, promoting faster road

infrastructure expansion. The increase in motor vehicle travel could result in increased

greenhouse gas (CO2) production thus contributing to potential climate change. Thus, the

significance of the climate impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative need to be

examined on a local and regional basis.

4.3 NATURAL ECOSYSTEM AND WETLANDS

This section addresses the potential effects of the implementation of the seven Maglev

Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative on natural ecosystems and wetlands. The

potential effects presented here include only those related to the Maglev guideway, and

do not cover effects of electrical and passenger stations, and maintenance locations, since

their design has not been finalized at this stage of the project. Potential effects from

project implementation (and their significance) on habitat, vegetation, wildlife, and

wetland resources are identified. Key potential impacts that may have large influences on

the function of the local ecosystem and on natural habitats and species may include:

direct effects of habitat loss; degradation in habitat quality through fragmentation and

introduction of exotic species; impacts resulting from alteration of hydrologic conditions,

runoff patterns, and water quality; effects on habitat management policies; potential for

collisions and impacts with – and their effects on –bird populations; potential for injury to

aquatic and terrestrial organisms during construction or operation; and effects of

extremely-low-frequency radio waves and electromagnetic fields on wildlife.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 10

4.3.1 ELF and EMF Effects on Wildlife

As in the case of all electrical machinery, Maglev emits radio waves (ELF in particular,

for Maglev) and produces electromagnetic fields. Little is known about the effects of

ELF radio waves and EMF on wildlife because they have not been studied in great detail.

The following is a summary of current knowledge and understanding on the subject.

Most research on wildlife has focused on possible alterations in foraging and migration

patterns, and, although there are a limited number of studies, no effects attributable to

electric and magnetic fields have been found. Some research on ongoing exposures to

EMF from a 76-Hz communications system in the mid-western U.S. have reported no

adverse impacts on wildlife, such as homing behavior of small birds and animals,

metabolism of small birds, and the population size of birds and deer. In addition to

studies in the wild, studies of domestic livestock and laboratory animals with regards to

EMF impacts from power lines reported no adverse health, behavior, or other

performance degradation for horses, sheep, swine, and dairy and beef cattle. Studies on

impacts to the reproductive capacity of mammals to 60-Hz EMF have thus far indicated

no adverse impacts. There are no regulatory standards at this time for EMF impacts on

wildlife. Based on the available literature, there is likely to be no significant adverse

impact on wildlife due to EMF. For a more detailed understanding of Maglev ELF radio

waves and EMF, see the Public Safety and Health sections of this PEIS.

4.3.2 California

The California Maglev Alternative is composed for the most part of developed areas that

do not provide supportive habitats. These developed areas have few valuable ecological

resources. Hence, there would not be a significant adverse impact to the ecological

resources present in the developed areas of the corridor. The alternative lies south of the

California Walnut Woodland vegetation community shown on the California Natural

Diversity Database, and is separated from the vegetation community by residential and

industrial areas. Thus, there is no potential for a significant adverse impact to the

California Walnut Woodland habitat.

Any impact to a wetland or listed species is considered significant by the environmental

resource agencies with purview (i.e., U.S. COE, U.S. FWS, and California Department of

Fish and Game, etc.). At the crossing of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers, there is a

potential to affect wetland habitat. The wide spacing of the footings and support

structure would not diminish the functionality of the river as a wildlife corridor. The

small amount of surface area needed for footings should have minimal impact on the

habitat. A detailed survey of resources within the river-crossing area has not yet been

completed to determine if there are any specific vegetation communities that would need

to be avoided. There would not be a significant adverse impact to the Santa Ana and San

Gabriel River habitats from deployment of the Maglev Program.

The potentially affected wetlands area within the alternative ranges from 0.07 ha (0.17

ac) to 0.61 ha (1.51 ac), which represents the wetlands potentially impacted by the

crossings of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. The wetlands-disturbance area would

range between 0.05 ha (0.12 ac) and 0.4 ha (1 ac) within the Santa Ana River crossing,

and between 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) and 0.21 ha (0.52 ac) within the San Gabriel River

crossing. The maximum values represent the total wetlands area within the crossings,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 11

whereas the minimum values are estimates based on preliminary design considerations of

the actual footprint of the proposed Maglev structure. Due to the small amount of

wetlands area affected by the guideway, there would not be a significant impact to

wetland resources within the alternative.

Based on preliminary design, it is concluded that there would not be a significant adverse

impact to natural ecosystems and wetlands within the alternative.

4.3.3 Florida

Based on preliminary design considerations, and assuming a 30.5 m (100 ft) wide rightof-way footprint for the proposed guideway, the Florida Alternative would cross

approximately 21.5 ha (53 ac) to 32.8 ha (81 ac) of relatively-undisturbed natural upland

habitat in the Titusville area, 23.9 ha (59 ac) to 32.4 ha (80 ac) of estuary, and 7.3 ha (18

ac) to 15.4 ha (38 ac) of wetlands. Because the alternative crosses these large areas of

habitat, there is a potential for a significant impact from habitat loss and fragmentation.

Impacts will be much smaller within the developed areas of the alternative if the

guideway follows existing transportation corridors. Significant impacts would be most

probable in the northwestern section of the alternative that traverses a portion of the

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which contains critical habitat for several

Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species. The alternative selected

may cross areas of largely undisturbed habitat on NASA property in the Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge, impacting approximately 20.2 ha (50 ac) of this area, and

resulting in some habitat loss and fragmentation. The Florida Alternative may cross areas

of largely undisturbed habitat on NASA property in the Merritt Island National Wildlife

Refuge, impacting approximately 20.2 ha (50 ac) of this area, resulting in some habitat

loss and fragmentation. In addition, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission states that the alternative would cross areas of the Enchanted Forest

Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) Project, the Scrub Jay Refuge CARL

Project, the Banana River Aquatic Preserve, the Indian River Lagoon, and other sensitive

habitats, also resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. This loss of habitat and habitat

fragmentation could have an adverse impact on avian species. In addition, some species

are dependant on fire for habitat enhancement. The presence of Maglev may preclude

these prescribed habitat burns or the Maglev guideway could be damaged from these

burns. Thus, species that are dependant on fire for habitat enhancement may be adversely

impacted from the presence of Maglev. Since the alternative crosses large areas of

critical and undisturbed habitat, it is concluded that the Maglev system could have a

significant adverse impact on the ecological resources of the alternative. Furthermore,

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has expressed concern over the

potential extensive environmental impacts associated with the Florida Alternative and

recommends against implementation.

The potentially impacted wetlands area within the alternative may be reduced through the

use of mitigation strategies and design techniques in the final system-design stage. For

example, use of trestles, bridges, and elevated guideways will reduce the impacted area

significantly. If these and other minimization techniques were utilized, the potential

environmental consequences to the estuaries and wetlands, in terms of habitat loss, runoff

generation, and hydrologic functioning, would be low. Potential impacts on water quality
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 12

would also be low if stormwater management and best management practices are

implemented during construction. Based on the assumption that elevated guideways be

used in all wetlands and water crossings, that the distance between trestles would be 21.3

m (70 ft), and that the footprint of each trestle would be 46.5 m2 (500 ft2) (15.2 x 3.0 m)

(50 x 10 ft), the wetland-area impacts between Titusville and Port Canaveral would range

from 2.2 ha (5.4 ac) to 3.4 ha (8.4 ac). The footprint of the proposed Maglev structure is

expected to be much smaller than the total area of the alternative. The total wetland area

for a 30.5 m (100 ft) wide right-of-way footprint ranges from 31.3 ha (77.3 ac) to 47.8 ha

(118.1 ac). The maximum potentially affected wetlands area within the 1,219.2 m (3,998

ft) -wide corridor ranges from 1,586 ha (3,919 ac) to 2,306.6 ha (5,699.6 ac). These

estimates were derived using data from the U.S. FWS NWI maps. It should be noted that

the affected wetlands could include approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac) of ecologically valuable

seagrass beds in the productive Banana River. The impacts due to habitat loss could be

significant on the local level and also on a regional level. Depending on the final

guideway and system design, there could be a significant adverse impact to the wetland

resources of the alternative, as a result of the concerns described above.

The Florida Alternative is comprised by a wide variety of unique ecological resources

(vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands), some of which are of State and Federal importance.

The overall impact to the ecosystems in the region will be greatly determined by the final

system design and guideway selection. Given the abundance of natural habitat, estuaries,

and wetlands within the alternative, there is a potential for a significant adverse impact to

these natural ecosystems from Maglev implementation and operation.

4.3.4 Georgia

Approximately 12 percent of the land directly impacted within the Georgia Alternative

would be characterized as park, water body, or open space (refer to the section on Land

Use in this PEIS). Operation and maintenance of the right-of-way would include tree

trimming and mowing; excessive vegetation would be removed from the permanent

right-of-way by means of mechanical equipment so as to maintain a low vegetative cover,

and trees would be permanently trimmed to a height just below the clearance envelope of

the Maglev vehicle. The combined creation of new rights-of-way adjacent to an existing

right-of-way may exacerbate impacts.

The alternative is comprised of many existing rights-of-way that have promoted forest

fragmentation due to pre-existing disturbance. Compared with roadway projects, effects

are minimal since the habitat may still be available for some wildlife utilization, if the

guideway is elevated. Clearing of the right-of-way vegetation may reduce cover, nesting,

and foraging habitat for some wildlife, which would result in temporary and permanent

alteration of wildlife habitat. During construction, the more mobile species would be

temporarily displaced from the right-of-way and would return to the area soon after

construction is complete. Habitat for less-mobile species such as small mammals,

reptiles, and amphibians, as well as bird nests located within the right-of-way could be

destroyed. Similar effects, although much less extensive, could result from routine

vegetation maintenance of the right-of-way. The overall potential impact on habitat and

vegetation and wildlife resources is not considered to be significant since the alternative

is highly developed; other regional projects (e.g., highways and private development)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 13

have a larger footprint on the environment than the proposed alternative; a major portion

of the alternative is located along existing rights-of-way that have caused habitat

fragmentation; and because the elevated design, if used, does not preclude the existence

and success of flora and fauna in the right-of-way.

The Georgia Alternative encompasses 106 ha (261.9 ac) of wetlands. Of those 106 ha

(261.9 ac) of wetlands, 11.9 ha (29.4 ac) are classified as forested wetlands and 94 ha

(232.3 ac) are classified as non-forested wetlands. Wetland impacts from the Maglev

system were calculated based on a permanent right-of-way ranging from 15 m (49 ft) to

30 m (98 ft). The total wetland area impacted would range between approximately 2 ha

(5 ac) and 4 ha (10 ac). Disturbance of wetlands may negatively affect their capacity to

control erosion and floods. Permanent impacts from substructure footprints would vary

according to specific pier placement. Typical pier spacing is 31 m (102 ft), but longer

spans are possible using more expensive structures. Non-forested wetlands include

palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, palustrine

emergent wetlands, lacustrine wetlands, and riverine wetlands types. Approximately 1.9

ha (4.7 ac) of non-forested-wetland habitat may be impacted. The majority of this area is

classified as riverine wetland, followed by palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland,

palustrine emergent wetland, and lacustrine wetland. Impact on these wetlands would be

minor and short-term since they would be allowed to revert back to the pre-construction

conditions. Approximately 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) of forested wetland may be impacted within

the permanent right-of-way of the proposed alternative. Since forest vegetation would be

permanently cleared to maintain these areas, impacts would be long term. However,

emergent and scrub-shrub wetland communities may replace forest vegetation. Given the

total wetland area potentially affected by the Maglev system, the overall impact to

wetland resources within the alternative would not be a significant adverse impact.

Implementation and operation of the Maglev system would have some effects on habitat

and wetlands within the alternative. However, based on preliminary design and the

estimated ecological value and area of the affected resources, there would not be a

significant adverse impact to natural ecosystems and wetlands within the alternative.

4.3.5 Louisiana

The island-like areas of pine savannas within the Louisiana Alternative are comprised of

plant communities of local importance, which are sensitive to physical changes and

changes in the water regimes that support their development and vitality. While removal

of whole plant communities from the natural ecosystem is highly unlikely, there would be

patches taken out of some community systems for Maglev-guideway construction and

maintenance purposes. The impact on these communities will depend on the magnitude

of the disturbance. Given the local importance and sensitivity of these plant

communities, there is a potential for a significant adverse impact to these habitats. The

State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries has indicated that there is a

potential for adverse impact to the habitat of protected bird species within the alternative.

Both the north and south shores of Lake Pontchartrain provide nesting sites for bald eagle

and osprey that could be adversely impacted by implementation of the Maglev system.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has indicated that there is potential for

direct cumulative impacts of project implementation on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 14

other marine fishery resources in the alternative. Because this transportation project is

located within an area identified as EFH, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

require consultation with the NMFS regarding potential impacts to EFH.

Based on preliminary planning design, the right-of-way affected by placing the proposed

elevated guideway across the marsh and swamp will be approximately 11 m (36 ft) wide

with the actual structures (piers) physically occupying considerably less ground. It is

estimated that of the total amount of wetlands in the northwestern portion of the

alternative (approximately 69,917 ha (172,765 ac)), the guideway will occupy between

3.9 ha (9.6 ac) and 4.3 ha (10.6 ac) of the wetlands area in that section. Of the total

amount of wetlands in the southwestern portion of the alternative (approximately 94,710

ha (234,028 ac)), the guideway will affect between 6.2 ha (15.3 ac) and 10.4 ha (25.7 ac)

of the wetlands area in that section. The NMFS has also indicated that the project could

have a significant and adverse impact on the wetland resources. The maximum

potentially affected wetlands area within the alternative was calculated assuming a 30.5

m (100 ft) wide right-of-way footprint for the proposed guideway, and was estimated to

be approximately 42 ha (103.8 ac).

There is a potential for impact to the general ecology of the La Branche Wetlands,

potentially affecting the La Branche Wetlands Restoration Plan of the NMFS and

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, west of the New Orleans International

Airport (NOIA). However, Lake Pontchartrain has a surface area of approximately 1,637

sq km (632 sq mi), and the right-of-way involvement in the lake would be of

approximately 0.4 sq km (0.16 sq mi) of the lake surface area (about the same total

surface area as is presently occupied by one of the two lane traffic roadway structures of

the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway). The Louisiana Maglev Alternative traverses

previously-disrupted wetland areas affected primarily by the intrusion of waters from

Lake Pontchartrain penetrating into the La Branche wetlands, minimizing the impact of

the project on the wetland resources of the alternative. In addition, with the planned

elevated open structure of the Maglev guideway, the hydrology (sub-surface and surface

flows) of the wetlands and Lake Pontchartrain would be left intact. The elevation of the

guideway and minimum disturbance to the wetlands and Lake Pontchartrain reduces the

probability of effects and compromise to the quality or functional values of the wetlands

and the lake. The pier structures would fill portions of the wetlands and lake bottom,

while construction will likely cause both permanent and temporary disruption within the

11 m (36 ft) width of the construction.

The small fraction of wetland area affected in the alternative under the proposed

guideway design indicates that there is little potential for a significant adverse impact to

wetland resources within the alternative. However, the maximum potential wetlands area

affected is much more significant, and the actual impacts will be determined by the

chosen design. Furthermore, the State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

has indicated that significant adverse impacts to wetlands located on both the north and

south shores of Lake Pontchartrain are very likely, and that the method of construction

will greatly determine the amount of direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive

wetlands. Thus, the implementation of the Maglev Program could have a significant

adverse impact on the wetlands of the alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 15

Based on the issues of concern raised by State agencies, and the sensitivity and

magnitude of the potentially-affected areas, there is a potential for a significant adverse

impact to natural ecosystems and wetlands resource within the alternative.

4.3.6 Maryland

The areas of the Maryland Alternative are comprised of developed areas, small woodland

tracts, agricultural or pasture fields, and forested wetlands adjacent to streams and

provide habitat for generalist species. Generalist species are more tolerant to

disturbances such as the ones that could occur from implementation of the proposed

alternative. The open space between the ground and the Maglev guideway may be

restored to a combination of grassland, woodland, or agricultural land, based on the

former and surrounding land use and the maintenance requirements of the structure. It is

anticipated that these restoration measures will provide suitable habitat for generalist

species. Therefore, in those areas suitable for generalist-species habitat, insignificant

permanent or direct impacts are anticipated.

The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) and the Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center (BARC) are comprised of large tracts of forest that provide habitat for specialized

species. Based on a 183 m (600 ft) buffer corridor, it is estimated that the project would

potentially cross between 99 ha (245 ac) and 132 ha (326 ac) of Sensitive Species Project

Review Areas within these two large natural resources. The National Capital Planning

Commission (NCPC) considers the PWRC a “highly valuable federal wildlife reserve.”

Given the unique characteristic of these habitats and the areas potentially affected, there

is a potential for a significant adverse impact to the ecological resources of the PWRC

and the BARC.

Potential impacts to National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and Department of Natural

Resources (DNR) wetlands were identified using a 31 m (102 ft) wide corridor. A 183 m

(600 ft) wide corridor was used to identify potential impacts to Wetlands of Special State

Concern (WSSC). The larger study corridor was used to provide additional protective

buffering for this sensitive habitat. Linear stream crossings, as well as palustrine forested

or palustrine shrub/shrub wetland crossings, will result from the guideway. A distinction

concerning the quality of wetlands shall be reserved for design-level analysis. All

mapped wetlands are considered to be of equal quality until such time as functional

assessments are appropriate, and only wetlands with the special designation of Wetlands

of Special State Concern have an inherent distinction of exceptional quality. Based on a

preliminary-planning design, and using Maryland DNR data, it is estimated that there

would be between 31 and 85 wetland crossings within the alternative, accounting for a

total potentially-affected-wetlands area ranging between 10 ha (25 ac) and 25 ha (62 ac).

There could also be up to 11 crossings of WSSC, accounting for up to 28 ha (69 ac) of

potentially impacted WSSC area. The actual impacted wetlands area in the alternative

could be reduced from that estimated for the maximum impacts case described above, by

the use of mitigation strategies and design techniques in the final system-design stage.

Depending on final system design and guideway selection there could be a potential for a

significant adverse impact to the wetland resources within the alternative.

Given the large areas of sensitive ecological resources, such as the PWRC and BARC,

and wetlands potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed alternative, the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 16

Maglev system has the potential to impose significant adverse impacts on the natural

ecosystems and wetlands of the alternative.

4.3.7 Nevada

Outside of urban areas, development of the guideway would affect an area 49 km (30 mi)

long and 12 m (39 ft) wide, resulting in disturbance or loss of approximately 59 ha (146

ac). If all proposed construction located outside of urban Las Vegas occurs within

previously-undisturbed desert, approximately 58.75 ha (145 ac) of Mojave Desert habitat

would be lost, and the plants and some of the animals within these areas would be

destroyed during construction, including a small number of individuals considered

sensitive or protected. The project will not impact wetlands or mesquite bosques, but will

have some impacts on the Mojave Desert habitat. The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

stated that the Mojave Desert is a relatively undisturbed and healthy desert, with

important ecological value for species such as the desert tortoise. Although the area of

desert impacted by the project is expected to be small relative to the available habitat in

the region, impacts must be considered not only in their own merit, but also as part of an

accumulation of impacts from this and other projects. The majority of the plant and

animal species likely to be destroyed or injured incidental to the project are widespread

and common in the region. The sensitive animal species potentially found near the project

area include the desert tortoise, the banded Gila monster and other reptiles, and other

animals about which there is little scientific information. Although it is expected that

their presence in the alternative region is infrequent, current gaps of information about

their ranges and movement, and mating and foraging behavior need to be addressed

before a final determination of impact is made. The sensitive plants potentially impacted

are often species thought to be associated with particular soil types found infrequently

and dispersed throughout the region, making surveys to assess the true status of these

species difficult. However, based on currently available species information and on the

preliminary planning information from the Nevada Alternative, it is expected that there

would be a moderate adverse impact to the plant and animal species.

The abundance of plants and animals in this area is naturally low and has been reduced

further by the presence of the adjacent interstate highways. The potential loss of a few

small populations of a few uncommon plant species should be minimized if possible, but

likely would not jeopardize the integrity of the ecosystem. The lack of migrating or

dispersing large animals in this region indicates that there would not be a significant

impact on habitat fragmentation. Based on the unlikely effects to vegetation and wildlife,

and the species relative abundance in the region, there would be minor adverse impacts to

the corridor vegetation and wildlife resources, and ecological processes and functions

within the alternative.

No wetlands, as defined by either the State of Nevada or the Federal government, would

be affected by construction and operation of the project within the alternative. Washes

that may be classified as waters of the U.S. by the Army Corps of Engineers would likely

be affected by this project. The corridor for the guideway may be up to 12 m (39 ft) wide

over the washes described above; therefore approximately 0.45 ha (1.1 ac) of waters of

the U.S. may be impacted. However, until the project design is completed and a formal

delineation of waters of the U.S. is conducted, the degree or amount of impact cannot be
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 17

determined. Still, because most of the guideway is downstream of Interstate 15, the flow

of many of the washes to be crossed has already been channeled or otherwise altered.

There would not be a significant adverse impact to the wetland resources within the

alternative.

The alternative crosses a widespread and relatively undisturbed and healthy desert with

important ecological value for some species. There are no wetlands in the alternative.

Based on preliminary planning information, it is expected that there would be minor to

moderate adverse impacts to natural ecosystems from implementation of this alternative.

4.3.8 Pennsylvania

Forest and urban land are the most common land-use types in the western portion of the

corridor from the Pittsburgh International Airport to downtown Pittsburgh. The

midsection of the alternative is comprised mostly of urban land and barren land (i.e., land

in transition), and constitutes the most developed area of the alternative. The eastern

section of the alternative is comprised of equivalent areas of urban land and forestlands.

The area of impacted forestlands ranges between 84.5 ha (208.8 ac) and 234.1 ha (578.5

ac). The area of rangeland potentially affected ranges from 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) to 33.8 ha

(83.5 ac), whereas the area of open water potentially is between 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) and 130.4

ha (322.2 ac).

Impacts to wildlife habitat have the potential to be greater in the forested and open areas

of the eastern section of the alternative, and prior to final design a habitat evaluation

would be conducted to determine more specific impacts to the ecology of the alternative.

Forestland within the proposed alternative will be cut for project construction and

operation. Herbaceous and shrub and brush habitat communities will be disturbed during

construction, as well. However, where access is not required to the guideway, these

communities could be re-planted with indigenous species and allowed to become reestablished, thus minimizing impacts to wildlife habitat. Estimates of areas potentially

impacted by the project were developed based on preliminary design planning. If

elevated design were used for the guideway, wildlife movement would not be restricted.

If portions of the Maglev system are designed at grade, potential restriction of wildlife

movement will be addressed prior to final design. The United States Department of the

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the mobility of some small or noisesensitive species may be affected by the project operation, even with the use of the

elevated design. Since the proposed guideway would be parallel to existing transportation

corridors through mostly urbanized areas, the impacts to the overall ecological system are

not expected to be significant. Thus, moderate negative impacts to habitat and some

wildlife species could result from project implementation.

Permanent loss to wetlands will occur from the placement of the columns directly in the

wetland area. Significant impacts could be minimized through project design, by placing

the piers at different spans, allowing for most of the isolated wetlands to be left

undisturbed. Wetland impacts were assessed using GIS to determine total wetland size,

vegetative type, and the extent of wetland within the alternative. If the alternative dissects

a wetland, only that portion within the alternative was considered an impact. During the

final design phase, actual wetland impacts will be based on the wetland area within the

alternative’s construction limits. Most impacts would occur to forested wetlands, in both
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 18

the number of individual wetlands and the total area, while emergent wetlands would be

the least impacted, with the exception of one unconsolidated bottom wetland. In the

western section of the alternative, between the airport and downtown Pittsburgh, there is

a potential for impact to unconsolidated bottom, emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested

wetlands. Utilizing secondary source data, no wetlands were identified within these

alternatives. In the eastern section of the alternative, there is a potential for impact to

scrub/shrub, forested, and palustrine wetlands. Based on preliminary planning, it is

estimated that the total area of potentially impacted wetlands would be approximately 4.9

ha (12.1 ac). This estimate assures a very wide corridor of 183 m (600 ft). This corridor

is substantially wider than the corridor of 31 m (102 ft) used for the other alternatives.

Given the small area of potentially affected wetlands, no significant adverse impacts to

wetland resources are anticipated.

Project implementation and operation would have some minor negative effects on habitat,

wildlife, and wetlands within the alternative. However, based on the areas affected and

their ecological value, there would not be a significant adverse impact to natural

ecosystems and wetlands in the alternative.

4.3.9 Mitigation

Mitigation plans could be implemented as a strategy for avoiding and minimizing the

potential impact of the deployment of the Maglev Program on natural ecosystems.

Avoidance of adverse impacts through project selection and design is the preferred

method to protect ecological resources. Where impacts cannot be avoided, minimization

strategies should be developed and implemented, to protect the functions and health of

ecological systems. Impacts on ecological systems that cannot be avoided or minimized

should be addressed through restoration and compensation strategies that could help in

the reestablishment of those ecological functions lost from the imposed disturbance. Once

one or more alternatives are advanced to the detailed-design phase, consultation and

coordination with Federal, State, and Local natural-resource agencies would be continued

to ensure that impacts to natural ecosystems are avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

Consultation with these agencies would be an integral part of the decision making

process concerning the selection of a Maglev guideway, based on environmental

constraints. The collaboration with these agencies will be critical to avoid and minimize

disruption to sensitive ecosystems.

As an example, mitigation plans to compensate for the loss of baseline habitat in terms of

habitat units (HUs) could be adopted. HU mitigation values would be developed for each

land-use/land-cover type affected. The mitigation site would be of the same type (in-kind

mitigation) and preferably adjacent to (on-site mitigation) the habitat which will be lost

as a result of the action. Other considerations include any significant construction

constraints, surrounding land-use compatibility, and availability of the property.

Potential mitigation strategies to minimize impacts on natural habitats and species could

include adjustment of the guideway to better follow the outer edges of habitats, refuge

boundary, or other disturbed areas such as roads and ditches. Efforts will be made to

minimize dissection of contiguous forest habitats in order to protect forest-interiordwelling species (FIDS) and minimize the creation of edge effect that allows introduction

of invasive plant species. To this end, disruption to forest cover during construction
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 19

could be mitigated by reforestation and specialized plantings at forest edges. Mitigation

strategies for impacts on wildlife may include selection of project-design parameters to

avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts on habitat fragmentation and animal-movement

patterns to the extent practicable, and restoration and enhancement of forested habitats

(wetland and upland) through timely restoration and annual monitoring of habitats.

Wetland impacts of the Maglev Deployment Program would be addressed by the

implementation of mitigation strategies. Where impacts are anticipated, consultation with

the U.S. COE, U.S. FWS, and other Federal, State, and Local agencies should be

conducted. The primary strategy for reducing wetland impacts is through avoidance and

minimization, including the maximization of the use of pre-existing transportation and

utility corridors to avoid or minimize new impacts, and to concentrate impacts on

previously disturbed, low-quality wetland habitat areas. Additional mitigation strategies

could include the enhancement or creation of like wetland habitat at the impacted site,

enhancement or creation of like habitat at a similar site in another area, or restoration of

the affected wetland habitat. Offsite mitigation can include financial contributions to

existing or planned wetland mitigation banks. A review process, involving all relevant

agencies, would be completed before project deployment to determine the best

combination of mitigation measures.

Compensatory mitigation is the process used by federal and state agencies for

determining whether development on wetlands is justifiable and if so, under what

conditions. If it is established that there is an unavoidable need to impact wetlands, then

the process attempts to minimize the extent of the impact and sets up requirements to

compensate for wetland losses. Restoration of a historic wetland area that has been

converted to non-wetland is typically considered the most promising approach. Other

forms of compensatory mitigation include creating wetlands from uplands, enhancement

of degraded wetlands, purchase credits in a mitigation bank, and preservation of

ecologically unique, -rare, or -valuable wetlands.

The replacement wetlands should be of the same type of wetland and include the

minimum area to provide the same functions and values, which will be lost as a result of

the action (in-kind mitigation). In-kind mitigation “reflects hydrological, structural, and

functional equivalency of the lost wetland community” (EPA, 1994). If the

reestablishment of wetland system functions cannot be met or exceeded, the replacement

ratio requirements will be greater. Ideally, the replacement site should be located

immediately adjacent to the wetland impacted (on-site mitigation). If this is not

practicable or feasible, then the replacement area should be located along or adjacent to

the waterbody that is part of the wetland system being impacted. The second-mostpreferred on-site replacement area would be located within the same watershed, but not

adjacent to the wetland lost. Only under extreme circumstances can a wetland

replacement site be located in a watershed other than where the loss has occurred.

The final design of a Maglev system may provide the opportunity to further reduce the

wetland impacts of the project. The use of bridging and elevated guideways could also be

an effective option for minimizing wetland and water-body impacts. Use of vertical wall

construction in place of side-sloped fill could also reduce impacts, and adequate bridges

and culverts can prevent alteration of wetland hydrology.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 20

4.3.10 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative consists of the non-deployment of the Maglev Program. It is

important to consider potential effects from the No-Action Alternative that could arise

from precluding the provision of transportation and other related benefits from the

Maglev Deployment Program.

Under the No-Action Alternative, travel by motor vehicle is expected to be significantly

higher than that under the Maglev Alternatives. The increase in motor-vehicle travel

would result in a variety of transportation problems that may include, among others,

increased congestion and road expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure

for long-distance motor-vehicle travel could have considerable impacts to ecological

resources (vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands) from habitat fragmentation and destruction,

and wetlands contamination and loss. These impacts would need to be examined on a

local and regional basis. These impacts could potentially be greater than those incurred

under the construction alternative. In addition, increased motor-vehicle travel and

congestion would have negative effects on air quality at the local, regional, and national

level. The impairment of air quality would raise concerns over potential negative effects

on ecological systems, including particulate deposition and acid-rain effects on

vegetation and wetlands.

4.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES

The presence of threatened or endangered species cannot be identified without sitespecific fieldwork. Because fieldwork to locate threatened and endangered species has

not been accomplished for any of the alternatives, the impact to these species cannot be

specifically verified at this planning stage. However, the likely presence of these species

was identified in the Affected Environment section of this PEIS and the potential impact

could be surmised from that information. This does not suggest that threatened or

endangered species will be directly impacted if found in the alternative. The analysis

only surmises, at this stage in the environmental review and planning process, the

potential. After final design, mitigation, and fieldwork to verify habitat and presence of

these resources, direct impact can be determined and mitigation plans considered.

The loss or alteration of suitable habitat could contribute to the decline of some species'

populations. Because the distribution and abundance of threatened and endangered

species are highly localized, any impact could affect the size or viability of these

populations. Likely environmental impacts may include the following:

§ Temporary to permanent displacement of threatened and endangered species

from existing habitat.

§ Habitat for threatened and endangered species may be temporarily or

permanently modified or damaged.

§ Finally, impacts may result in the incidental destruction of threatened and

endangered species.

Because threatened or endangered species have been identified in the corridor, the

potential of a significant adverse impact does exist. The actual location of endangered
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 21

species has not been determined at this stage of the Maglev Deployment Program and

specific impacts to threatened or endangered species cannot be identified.

4.4.1 California

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. The western yellow-billed cuckoo, southern skullcap, and Brand’s

phacelia could be found along the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River is soft

bottomed and is the only potential habitat for sensitive species in this portion of the

alternative. The likelihood of the cuckoo or the two plant species being present is very

low. The Santa Ana River woollystar, marsh sandwort, and slender-horned spineflower

have been found in the Santa Ana River area, as well as the arroyo chub and the Santa

Ana sucker. Riparian habitat, although not of great value here, is a critical concern

downstream of this location.

4.4.2 Florida

Potential impact so some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. In the case of the Florida scrub jay (the species that potentially poses the

greatest constraints for this alternative), the affected area is a complex mosaic of habitat

types including true scrub and other types. The scrub jay may be restricted to nesting in

the true scrub areas, but may require various portions of the other areas to provide a

sufficient forage range and buffer zone for survival. Thus, the loss of some true scrub

acreage may represent a large degree of impact, whereas the loss of the same amount of

secondary habitat may be less detrimental and more-easily mitigated. Quality of habitat

and degree of management are also important considerations.

Estuarine waters serve as habitat for the West Indian manatee and other species.

However, it is highly probable that the guideway would be elevated across all of these

areas and the amount of actual habitat loss will be restricted to insignificant amounts

required for the support structures. In this case, the potential for impacts to the manatee

population may be more directly related to potential construction impacts such as boat

collisions with manatees or to effects of accidents during operation. The former can be

essentially eliminated with proper construction management and monitoring, utilizing

guidelines developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and

Florida Department of Transportation. Operational accidents would have a remote

probability of occurrence and a risk assessment can be best evaluated during detailed

design.

Finally, impacts associated with a project of this type may be related more to the effects

on individuals other than direct loss of habitat. In the case of the Florida scrub jay, these

potential impacts may include mortality from bird impacts during operation, increases in

mortality through increased predator efficiency due to increased perching areas along the

guideway, and to changes in habitat due to operational limitations on habitat

management. All of these potential issues have been raised for the Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge during meetings with the U.S. FWS.

Potential mitigation strategies include seasonal timing of construction, use of habitatmanagement alternatives to fire in scrub and flatwoods habitats, and habitat restoration.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 22

Another possible strategy would be to coordinate with applicable agencies such as U.S.

FWS or Brevard County in cooperative efforts or contributions for habitat restoration or

research factors affecting survival of key listed species in the region. Such options would

be applicable as mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

4.4.3 Georgia

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. Bachman’s sparrow can be found in open fields with thick brushy

undergrowth, re-generating clear cuts, and old-growth pine stands with an open

understory. Some open fields were identified within the alternative that might provide

suitable habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow. The Maglev project could adversely impact

the habitat of these plant species.

Suitable habitat for one federally listed, three stated-listed, and three plants of special

concern was identified in the project area. The Maglev project could potentially impact

the habitat of these plant species.

4.4.4 Louisiana

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. The likely impact on the bald eagles within the Louisiana Alternative

would be from human disturbance during construction and operation, and some habitat

alteration. The bald eagle habitat of wetland, marsh, and swamp that could be influenced

by the elevated guideway would be approximately 11 m (36 ft) in width with the actual

structures (piers) physically occupying considerably less terrain.

Gulf sturgeons have been reported in the Lake Pontchartrain area of the Louisiana

Alternative. The likely impact from the Maglev would be disturbance of the water

bottoms in the Lake Pontchartrain basin.

The manatee has declined in numbers due to collisions with boats and barges, entrapment

in flood control structures, poaching, habitat loss, and pollution. Cold weather and

outbreaks of red tide may also adversely affect these animals. The likely impact from the

Maglev would be from encounters with construction watercraft and equipment.

4.4.5 Maryland

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. A peregrine falcon nest site is known to exist in Baltimore City within

close linear proximity of the proposed alignments. Because the nest site is located on a

tall building, no direct effects are anticipated.

An occurrence of the glassy darter has been recorded in the Little Patuxent River in the

immediate area of the proposed BW Parkway. This species is listed as state endangered.

Two plant species, included in the ‘species of concern’ list are noteworthy because

correspondence from the MD DNR suggests that, even though they may not be directly

affected, these species exist in the corridor. Swamp pink and giant cane have been

known to occur near Stony Run, west of BWI Airport. Swamp pink is listed as state

endangered and federally threatened. Giant cane is listed as state threatened.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 23

The Leavenworth’s sedge is known to exist along the northeastern portion of the PWRC.

This species is currently listed as endangered extirpated status (in Maryland) but is

expected to change to state endangered, according to the DNR. An ‘endangered

extirpated’ species is one that was thought to no longer exist in Maryland but recent

occurrences have been recorded. A general location of this population of Leavenworth’s

sedge was provided by DNR.

Two species, the bog fern and clammyweed are known to occur along Stony Creek, west

of BWI Airport. The bog fern is listed as state threatened. The status of clammyweed is

expected to change from state endangered extirpated to state endangered. These two

populations are along Stony Run.

The short-fruited rush has been historically identified in the area. This species is listed as

state endangered extirpated. This occurrence was described by the state as a species of

concern. The species may or may not actually occur within the alternative.

4.4.6 Nevada

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified. Potential impacts to the desert tortoise from the proposed project would

be minimal but could include death or injury of individual tortoises, loss of a small

amount of desert tortoise habitat, and additional fragmentation of desert tortoise habitat.

Because of the substantially reduced density of tortoises adjacent to Interstate 15, the

likelihood of encountering, and then killing or injuring, a tortoise during construction and

operation is extremely low. Based on the best available information on the design and

footprint of the alignment and the facilities, approximately 65 ha (161 ac) of desert

tortoise habitat would be permanently disturbed. If fencing is used, it could have an

impact on the desert tortoise habitat. Fragmentation may occur if the security fencing

blocks passage of the desert tortoise. Potential fencing types including chain link and

strand barbwire do allow tortoise passage. The guideway also allows tortoise passage so

fragmentation is unlikely. Additionally, because the alignment parallels Interstate 15, a

structure effectively fragmenting the habitat in this area, the minimal fragmentation effect

of the project is overwhelmed by that of the Interstate.

Potential impacts to the banded Gila monster include death or injury during construction,

habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation. Because of the extremely low densities of this

species in the area, the potential for death or injury are minimal. As with the desert

tortoise, habitat-impact surveys would reveal that a very small proportion of the available

habitat is being impacted, so impacts on this species would be negligible. However, as

with the tortoise, habitat fragmentation could occur as a result of this project, but

Interstate 15 already provides a substantial barrier to movement of this species.

Individuals or small populations of the Las Vegas bearpoppy may be impacted by

construction of the alignments and the facilities, if they are present within the proposed

project areas. Field surveys would have to be conducted to fully understand the potential

impacts on this species.

Potential impacts to the two additional BLM Special-Status Species likely to occur in the

area (rosy two tone beardtongue [Penstemon bicolor ssp. roseus] and white-margined

beardtongue) would include the loss of small populations or individuals of these species.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 24

The degree or likelihood of these impacts cannot be quantified until field surveys are

conducted. Other species considered to be special-status species by the BLM may also

be found in the area during these surveys.

Potential impacts on the banded gecko, desert iguana, California kingsnake, and the

Mojave green rattlesnake, would likely include the death or injury of some individuals

and a loss of a relatively small proportion of available habitat.

4.4.7 Pennsylvania

Potential impact to some of the more significant threatened or endangered species have

been identified.

The Pennsylvania Alternative is within the range of the Indiana bat, a species that is

federally listed as endangered. In addition, a winter hibernaculum for this species exists

approximately 40 miles from the area. Land clearing, especially of forested areas, may

adversely affect this species by killing, injuring, or harassing bats, and by removing or

reducing the quality of summer foraging and roosting habitat. A detailed field study

would be conducted if this alternative is selected to continue.

4.4.8 Mitigation

Mitigation measures could include design changes that would avoid, minimize, or reduce

potential impacts to acceptable levels; rectifying impacts by restoring the affected

environment; and compensation of resources. Mitigation measures would be tailored to

the individual species and its habitat. A review could be conducted to determine the most

appropriate mitigation measures. This review could include coordination with state and

federal officials for comment and approval.

4.4.9 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

endangered species directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider

potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the

Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

Travel by motor vehicle and airplane is expected to be significantly higher under the NoAction Alternative than that under any of the Maglev Alternatives. The increase in

motor-vehicle travel would result in a variety of transportation problems that may

include, among others, increased congestion and road expansion. The construction of

additional infrastructure for long-distance motor vehicle and air travel could have

considerable impacts to endangered species from encroachment, habitat fragmentation

and destruction, and wetlands contamination and loss, among other things. In addition,

increased air travel and motor-vehicle travel and congestion would have negative effects

on air quality at the local, regional, and national level. The impairment of air quality

would raise concerns over potential negative effects on the ecological systems in which

endangered species live, including particulate deposition and acid rain effects on

vegetation and wetlands. These impacts would need to be examined on a local and

regional basis. Based on the stated concerns, it is expected that the No-Action Alternative
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 25

could have an impact on threatened and endangered species based on this growing

scenario; the significance of the impacts need to be determined on an alternative specific

basis, but are expected to range from insignificant to moderate.

4.5 WATER QUALITY

If constructed, the routine operation and maintenance of the Maglev system would

comply with state and federal environmental regulations in an effort to mitigate impacts.

Regulatory issues related to water quality may include:

§ Increased runoff and its associated pollutants from impervious surfaces.

§ Hazardous materials storage and hazardous waste disposal.

§ Spill potential of oil and other petroleum products.

§ Washrack water.

§ Disposal of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S., including wetlands.

Within each of the alternatives, the Maglev guideway will be elevated and the support

structures will occupy a minimal amount of surface area; therefore, drainage patterns are

expected remain the same. However, new drainage patterns could occur at O&M

facilities due to the creation of impervious surface, having the potential to carry

additional sediment to water resources. The number of O&M facilities constructed

would be minimal. Therefore, there could be a potentially insignificant adverse impact to

the water quality within each of the alternatives. Mitigation would comply with Federal,

state, and local water quality regulations.

4.5.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

water quality directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider

potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the

Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

In the No-Action Alternative, congestion would continue and air emissions would

increase. As the population increases, congestion will increase on already burdened

highways and airports. Consequently, public concern could convince legislators to

increase the size of highways or airports. This infrastructure development has the

potential to increase impervious surfaces to a greater extent than development associated

with Maglev implementation. Runoff from impervious surfaces is a regulatory issue

related to water quality. Drainage patterns would also be impacted by potential new

roadway construction. In addition, increased air travel and motor-vehicle travel and

congestion would have negative effects on air quality at the local, regional, and national

level. The impairment of air quality would raise concerns over potential negative effects

on water quality derived from particulate deposition and acid rain effects. Therefore, the

No-Action Alternative could have a potential moderate impact on water quality.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 26

4.6 FLOOD HAZARD

Flooding occurs when a body of water overflows into the floodplains. The floodplains

moderate the flood flow, contribute to human safety and act as areas for ground water

recharge. Any structure that is built in the floodplain will displace water during a flood

and result in elevated floodwaters. Impacts from Maglev are from the construction of

structures within the floodplain.

The Maglev guideway will be constructed with support structure in the shape of a

column. Each column requires surface area of land for stability. If the required column

is located within the floodplain, the construction will fill in the space normally used by

the floodwaters. In other words, the support structure would displace floodwaters and

cause the floodplains to expand.

In addition to the guideway, the Maglev stations, O&M, and other support facilities if

located in floodplains could have a similar impact. The required area for construction of

the facilities could displace floodwater and cause expansion of the floodplain. In

addition, the stations and facilities could also increase the amount of impervious surface.

The addition of impervious surface to the floodplains could increase the elevation of the

floodwaters and the expansion of the floodplains.

The specific impact to the floodplains cannot be determined until the locations and design

of these structures are decided during final design. However, the relative potential

impact can be estimated at this time based on the length of the floodplain crossed by the

guideway for each alternative. It should be noted that this analysis is the worst-case

scenario since the guideway is elevated with just the support columns affecting the

floodplains. For each of the alternatives, the length of floodplain crossing of the

guideway is estimated in Table 4.6-1 based on preliminary design estimates.

Mitigation could be implemented if loss of floodplain capacity were an expected result of

constructing the Maglev system. Mitigation could include avoidance of the floodplains,

creation of compensatory flood storage, installation of an on-site detention pond with

timed release of stormwater, and a reduction of impervious surfaces. Specific mitigation

needs cannot be identified for each alternative until final design and location of the

Maglev system components is complete.

Table 4.6-1 - Floodplain Crossing Lengths

Alternative Potential Length of Floodplain

Crossing (km/mile)

% of Corridor Crossing

Floodplain

California 0.5 – 1.5 km / 0.3 – 0.9 mi 0.4 – 1.1%

Florida 11 – 26 km / 7 – 16 mi 34 – 81%

Georgia 0.7 – 1.0 km / 0.4 – 0.6 mi 1.4 – 2.0%

Louisiana 16 – 28 km / 10 – 17 mi 21 – 36%

Maryland 7.0 – 8.0 km / 4.3 – 5.0 mi 11 – 13%

Nevada 4.0 – 5.0 km / 2.5 – 3.1 mi 6.0 – 7.5%

Pennsylvania 1.2 – 17.5 km / 0.7 – 10.9 mi 1.7 – 35%

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 27

4.6.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

flood hazard directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider

potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the

Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

Under the No-Action Alternative, congestion would continue to increase on already

burdened highways and airports. Consequently, public concern could convince

legislators to increase the size of highways or airports. This infrastructure

development/expansion has the potential to encroach on floodplains. Water displacement

from structures in the floodplain and the addition of impervious surfaces, both cause

increased floodplain elevation and expansion, potentially leading to more property

damage. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative could have a potential impact on

floodplains.

4.7 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

A requirement of the CZM Program is federal consistency. Federal consistency ensures

that federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect the coastal zone be consistent with

the policies of a coastal state's approved coastal management program (CMP). The

objective is to ensure that federal agencies and projects using federal funds adequately

consider and comply with state CMPs.

As part of the Maglev Deployment Project, each of the seven alternatives that was within

a coastal zone district was evaluated for consistency with the state CMPs. The results of

this CMP review showed that Florida, Louisiana and Maryland were the only projects in

a coastal zone district and all three are expected to be in compliance with local programs

(see Table 4.7-1). Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact to the coastal

zones for all of the alternatives.

Table 4.7-1 - Alternative Consistency with State CMPs

Alternative Lies Within Coastal

Zone District

Consistent

With CMP

California No N/A

Florida Yes Yes

Georgia No N/A

Louisiana Yes Yes

Maryland Yes Yes

Nevada No N/A

Pennsylvania No N/A

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000);

(MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

4.8 AIR QUALITY

This section discusses: 1) the methodology that is used to determine air pollution

emissions that would occur from each of the seven action alternatives, and 2) the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 28

significance of the impacts from all the alternatives as related to the NAAQS. In any

non-attainment area (NAA), an increase in total mass of a pollutant for which that area is

in non-attainment is significant. Violations of the NAAQS or exacerbation of these

standards is also significant.

Analysis is done on a microscale (local) or mesoscale (regional) basis. Carbon

monoxide, lead, sulfur-oxides, and particulate matter emissions are important in a

microscale analysis because of the localized effect. Other pollutants, such as oxides of

nitrogen (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), are more important in a

regional analysis because they are precursors to the secondary pollutant ozone. The

location and source of the pollutant release must also be considered. For example,

remote power plants are needed to supply the electric power for the Maglev trains.

Because these emissions are, in effect, displaced from one location to another, pollutants

such as sulfur oxides that are directly associated with power plants could also be

important on a regional basis. As such, different methodologies are used to analyze the

various criteria pollutants.

Emission factors are used for both microscale and mesoscale analysis. These factors

estimate the emission rate per activity of the particular source. The emission factors are

needed to evaluate the existing emissions and for future alternatives, including the NoAction Alternative. Common sources of these factors are the EPA-promulgated

MOBILE computer program for motor vehicles’ gaseous releases of NOx, VOCs, and

CO, and PART5 for motor-vehicle particulate matter and SO2 releases. The EPA listing

of factors is in the document, “A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,”

(commonly called AP-42) for many types of sources, and the Federal Aviation

Administration Program EDMS for aircraft emission factors.

During microscale analysis at the project level, dispersion models are used to determine

local-area concentrations. Microscale analysis should be done in areas where large

indirect sources exist. These indirect sources are facilities that do not themselves emit,

but attract sources that do emit. For the Maglev evaluation, these indirect sources would

include Maglev stations and airports. Because, the location and design of Maglev

stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities have not been finalized, the site-specific

traffic and facilities air emission impact cannot be identified at this planning stage.

However, for the Maglev Program Alternatives considered in further detail, the

microscale analysis will be completed.

A regional inventory is usually sufficient for project purposes. This allows for the

evaluation of overall pollutant mass emitted and the determination as to which alternative

would result in pollution decreases. It follows that if less is emitted, air quality should

improve. The emission inventory may also be used during large-scale regional modeling.

The methodology used for an emission inventory is generally to multiply the emission

factors (emission mass release rate per activity) by the level of activity and sum for all

sources. For example, motor-vehicle emission factors are generally in grams/mile and

grams/hour of idle. By multiplying by the vehicle-miles traveled and the hours of idle the

total emissions can be determined. It should be noted that emission factors are specific

for each pollutant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 29

As alluded to previously, the location of the pollution release and the type of source must

be carefully evaluated. Criteria pollutant emissions from Maglev trains in themselves are

quite small. However, the power must be generated to propel the vehicles, overcome line

loss during transmission, and overcome inefficiencies of the system. This is done by one

or more power plants that may be removed from the actual project location, which means

emission may occur away from the project area. However, these emissions will still be

important for the regional air quality.

Power plants may be hydro-, nuclear, or wind powered; burn natural gas, fuel oil, or coal;

or use other less conventional fuels or energies. This requires that power-plant types be

determined to analyze the pollutant emissions due to power generation. Of course for

hydro-, nuclear- and wind- turbine generated power, the release of criteria pollutants is

negligible. For coal-fired and fuel-oil power plants, particulate matter, sulfur oxides,

nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are all important. For natural gas powered plants,

only nitrogen oxides are important.

In the troposphere – the layer surrounding the earth’s surface –ground level ozone is an

air pollutant that affects human health, vegetation, and many common materials; it is a

key ingredient of urban smog. Ozone can be generated by passing oxygen or dry air

through a high-energy electrical field, where a portion of the oxygen is converted into

ozone. Ozone is produced from the generation of an electrical arc, through ionization of

the atmosphere from high-energy electrical fields, as in the case of lightning strikes. The

magnitude of the electrical field is directly related to the potential for ozone generation.

Electricity is used to generate the electromagnetic forces that levitate propel Maglev

trains along a guideway. Thus, the potential for ozone generation from the electrical

fields in the guideway was considered. The voltage used for the electrical supply and

distribution system for the Maglev system is low compared to that necessary for the

ionization of the atmosphere to generate ozone. In addition, potential ozone generation

sources along the guideway were considered, including the propulsion systems located

along the guideway – which use solid-state devices that do not generate ozone, and the

low-speed power pick-up rails. Based on this analysis, FRA concluded that the

implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program would not contribute to ozone

generation, since the magnitude of the electrical fields produced by the potential sources

of ozone generation in the guideway – or its associated subsystems – is not sufficient to

promote the ionization of the atmosphere and thus generate ozone.

Implementation of the Maglev trains should result in a reduction of other transportation

sources in the corridor. The other modes of transportation that the Maglev train will

replace represent an emission benefit and should be considered. These modes could be

conventional or light rail, aircraft, or motor vehicles. Light rail are generally electrified

lines and could be directly compared to the Maglev system. Conventional diesel rail,

aircraft, and motor vehicles emit particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and

carbon monoxide. Lead is usually negligible, and in the case of fuel use other than

diesel, sulfur oxides may be low as well.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 30

4.8.1 California

Dispersion modeling planning has not progressed to the point of the planning stage to

perform a meaningful quantitative CO “hot spots” analysis. Accordingly, there is no

comparison to the NAAQS or State standards for sources such as the commuter stations.

The emission benefits for displaced on-road vehicles have been calculated for a low- and

high- ridership estimate. The forcast year 2020 was used for the analysis.

Regional power plants were considered for the power needed by the Maglev system.

This power is stated to be supplied by power plants using 20.7 percent coal, 32.1 percent

natural gas, 1.8 percent biomass and waste, and 45.4 percent by hydro, nuclear,

geothermal, solar, or wind for the entire grid. It was not apparent which plants existed in

the South Coast Air Basin. Emission factors for the emitting plants were derived from

AP-42. Power consumption (discussed in the Energy section) was based on 249 train

hours of operation per day and an added factor of 10 percent of train propulsion energy to

account for train station consumption. The reported energy use based on these

assumptions was 968,772,993 MJ (918,219.5 million BTU) per year. The net changes in

emissions for the project are shown in Table 4.8-1.

Table 4.8-1 - California Net Changes in Emissions (tons/year)

TOG CO NOx PM10

Vehicle travel

reduction

-76.06 -1670.0 -336.1 -21.3

Maglev energy

consumption

1.98 13.97 26.29 83.7

Net Change in

Emissions

-74.03 -1656.03 -309.81 62.4

 Source: (CM, 2000)

Based on this analysis, reductions occur for TOG (total organic gases, including

precursors to O3) and all criteria pollutants with the exception of particulate matter.

While impacts for SO2 are not reported, an increase is likely for this criteria pollutant.

Given that the basin is in attainment for CO and NOx, the reductions in emissions will

provide an added benefit for the retention of that status. Additionally, since the area is a

NAA for particulate matter, a conformity analysis will be required. However, 91 percent

of the added PM10 emissions would be from coal burning power plants and SO2 outside

of the basin area. This would result in a net benefit or a reduction in the particulate

matter emitted in the basin.

Mitigation strategies include reducing the particulate impact outside of the basin by using

more power from “clean” power plants using hydro, nuclear, geothermal, and wind

power. For the station areas, siting, design, and revisions of geometry potential means

for reducing delays and better managing traffic flows.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 31

4.8.2 Florida

An emission inventory was completed for the year 2020 for motor vehicles. Emission

factors from MOBILE5b, PART5 and the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/oms/annemit.htm) were used. Input parameters were consistent with the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection values. The participant estimated that M2000 operation will

result in a reduction in motor vehicle travel of 178,074 km (110,650 mi), which will

result in a decrease in fuel consumption that will reduce highway traffic emissions (see

Table 4.8-2) and energy consumption by approximately 1.24 billion BTU per year. The

annual power consumption for the M2000 operation was calculated to be 34.03 billion

BTU. This power is expected to be derived from a combination of fossil fuels and

nuclear sources.

Overall, M2000 operation will result in an increase in energy consumption of 32.79

billion BTU annually. Hence, although there would be beneficial effects from reduced

highway traffic emissions, the overall increase in energy consumption from Maglev

operation could lead to negative effects on the air quality of the alternative, if the motor

vehicle emission reductions are offset by the emissions generated to provide power for

the M2000 operation. Thus, the net effect of M2000 operation on air quality will be

largely dependent on the mix of energy sources used to meet the power consumption

demand of Maglev operation. Since the corridor area is in compliance for all NAAQS,

the attainment status should be reviewed for those criteria pollutants, if any, for which

emissions increase with M2000 implementation.

Table 4.8-2 - Florida Motor Vehicle-Related Air Emissions in Metric Tons/Tons

Per Year

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10

Metric Tons

No-Action 32.7926 271.9552 39.5737 2.3076 1.7611

Action 32.6133 270.4686 39.3573 2.2950 1.7514

Net -0.1793 -1.4866 -0.2164 -0.0126 -0.0097

Tons

No-Action 36.1470 299.7743 43.6218 2.5437 1.9412

Action 35.9494 298.1356 43.3833 2.5298 1.9306

Net 1-0.1976 -1.6387 -0.2385 -0.0139 -0.0106

1

A negative number represents an emissions reduction attributable to the project. Source: (FDOT, 2000)

4.8.3 Georgia

The cases analyzed in the Georgia EA include the existing case, the future No-Action

(year 2005) and the future action case (year 2005). For the action option, 50 Maglev train

trips per day were assumed with 4 trips in the peak hour. This results in a total of 18,250

trips per year. The power requirement for the project is reported to be 5.4 million BTU
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 32

per year and is assumed to be supplied by a mix of power plants (25 percent nuclear or

hydroelectric and 75 percent fossil fuels).

If the project is built, the reduction of vehicle miles traveled is predicted to be 180,498

km (112,089 mi) per day. Calculations of motor vehicle emissions reductions (in kg/hr

and day) were developed with these original estimates of motor vehicle travel reduction.

The increase in emissions was calculated based on the Maglev power requirements. The

total net changes in emissions were calculated and are presented in Table 4.8-3.

Table 4.8-3 - Georgia Net Changes in Emissions Based on Maglev Project

2005 Emissions (c) 2025 Emissions (c)

Pollutant kg/hr

(lb/hr) (a)

kg/day

(lb/day) (a)

kg/hr

(lb/hr) (a)

kg/day

(lb/day) (a)

VOC -3.0

(-6.6)

-30

(-66)

-3.7

(-8.2)

-36.7

(-80.9)

CO -47.0

(-103.6)

-466

(-1,027)

-89.0

(-196.2)

-885

(-1,951)

NOx 4.4

(9.7)

71

(157)

7.4

(16.3)

108

(238)

SO2 68

(150)

917

(2,022)

86.5

(190.7)

1,167

(2,573)

PM10 2.4

(5.3)

32

(71)

2.9

(6.4)

39.9

(88)

(a) All lb/hr and lb/day emission estimates are based on summertime emission rates for all pollutants except CO that is based

on wintertime emission rates.

(b) Annual emission estimates are based on an average of winter and summer emission rates.

(c) Based on Georgia Power’s projected source mix. Further reductions in power plant emissions could reduce or eliminate

any net Project-related pollutant increases.

Source: (ARC, 2000)

The overall emission inventory shows a decrease in VOCs and CO, but an increase in

NOx, SO2, and PM10.

Emission factors used for motor vehicles were determined using the MOBILE5a and

PART5 computer models. Transportation control measures used in the Georgia SIP were

used as partial input during the development of these emission factors. Based on

Georgia’s sulfur fuel requirement, a correction factor was used in the PART5 model

analysis of SO2.

The conclusions of the analysis are an environmental benefit for CO and VOCs and an

increase in NOx, PM10, and SO2. However, no significant adverse impacts or ambient

levels that exceed the NAAQS are expected. Because of the power plant locations and

the reduction in VOCs, it is likely that levels of ozone may not increase in the MetroAtlanta area. This is especially important for NOx since the Atlanta area is a NAA for

ozone.

Potential mitigation is not deemed necessary for the PM10 or SO2 emission increases.

For NOx, the most effective mitigation measure is to increase ridership without

proportionally increasing the power requirements of the Maglev system. Other

mitigation measures include increasing the percent of electric power supplied by nuclearand hydro-powered plants, improvements to emission controls on existing power plants,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 33

completion of the corridor to Chattanooga to allow cargo shipments and increased

efficiency of the route for the Maglev system, and transit incentives. For the transit

incentives, reductions in single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) by use of buses or shuttles

would reduce traffic and cold starts, providing a benefit.

Recent analysis of the effects of Maglev implementation lead to new estimates of motor

vehicle travel reductions of 196,153 km (121,884 mi) per day. This reduction implies a

slight decrease in motor vehicle emissions compared to the original analysis, with net

changes in emissions increasing for those criteria pollutants for which Maglev operation

provides a benefit, and reducing for those pollutants for which Maglev operation leads to

higher emissions when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Thus, the overall

conclusions of beneficial effects for CO and VOC emissions, and insignificant increase in

NOx, PM10, and SO2 emissions, do not change with this new information.

4.8.4 Louisiana

Vehicle-miles traveled for the year 2020 are calculated to decrease by 225,205,000 as a

result of the Louisiana Alternative. Another assumption, based on results from the

regional TRANPLAN model, was that 9.5 percent of the traffic is now trucks. However,

the reduced vehicle miles from passengers on the Maglev were assumed to be all in cars

and as such, truck traffic was not reduced. This reduction in vehicle-miles traveled was

used to calculate the emission benefits. Emission factors for the highway vehicles were

derived using MOBILE5a and PART5. Input parameters used to run these computer

models were consistent with the established inputs of the New Orleans Transportation

Plan Year 2020. Using the vehicle-miles traveled and the emission factors, an emission

inventory was then prepared for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10 for passenger vehicles.

The initial power consumption of the Maglev system was calculated to be 915,172,410

MJ (867.5 billion BTU) per year. This power generated was assumed to be 69 percent

natural gas, 17 percent coal, and 14 percent nuclear.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.8-4. Because power-plant

emissions are not considered, substantial reductions in CO, NOx, VOC, and PM10 are

shown. SO2 was not considered for either source.

Upon further analysis of the Maglev system in the Energy section, it was determined that

power consumption would be 1,021 billion BTU per year (refer to the Energy sections in

Chapters 3 and 4 for details). This higher estimate of power consumption would lead to

increased emissions from Maglev operation. However, the net effect of this increase will

depend on the mix of energy sources used to provide the additional Maglev power

requirements. Since the area is in compliance for all NAAQS, the attainment status

should be reviewed for those criteria pollutants, if any, for which emissions increase with

Maglev implementation. Depending on the energy sources used, the increased power

supply emissions could be offset by the decrease in motor vehicle emissions associated

with diverted travel. In that case, an overall benefit to air quality would be realized.

Since the area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, no changes to the attainment

status are expected from Maglev operation.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 34

PM10

-15

0

-15

VOC

-385

0

-385

NOx

-417

0

-417

Change in Emissions

(Tons/Year)

Maglev Vs. No-Action

CO

-4,620

0

-4,620

PM10

639421

1,060

VOC

16,490

1,728

18,218

NOx

17,863

6,149

24,012

Maglev

CO

197,848

9,642

207,490

PM10

654421

1,075

VOC

16,875

1,728

18,603

NOx

18,280

6,149

24,429

Annual Emissions (Tons)

No-Action

CO

202,468

9,642

212,110

PM10

0.060.37

VOC

1.551.51

NOx1.685.38

Emission Factor (g/mile)

CO

18.59

8.43

Maglev

9,657,609,8431,037,455,542

10,695,065,385

Annual Regional VMT

No-Action

9.883,129,1081,037,455,542

10,920,584,650

Table 4.8-4 - Louisiana Change in Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions in Year 2020

Vehicle

Class

Passenger

Vehicles

HeavyDuty

Vehicles

Total

Source: (GNEOA, 2000)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 35

4.8.5 Maryland

A reduction of 1,287,475 km (800,000 miles) of daily highway vehicle travel is predicted

from implementation of the Maglev system. The pollution benefits, and emission factors

used are presented in Table 4.8-5 for the year 2020 for VOC, CO, and NOx. Other

pollutants were not considered.

From the Energy section, the power consumption of the Maglev system was calculated to

be 235.2 billion BTU annually. This power will come primarily from fossil fuels (coal,

oil, and natural gas). Based on projected reduction in daily 1,287,475.2 VKT (800,000

VMT), Maglev operation will result in net yearly energy savings of 1,536.6 billion BTU.

Depending on the mix of energy sources used to meet the Maglev power requirements,

this reduction in energy consumption could result in air quality benefits. Since the

corridor area is in compliance for all NAAQS other than ozone, no change in the

attainment status of these pollutants is expected from Maglev operation. The attainment

status should be reviewed for those criteria pollutants, if any, for which emissions

increase with Maglev implementation, with special attention to ozone, given its serious

NAA status.

Table 4.8-5 - Maryland Summary of Estimated Annual Reductions in VOCs, CO

and NOx (2020)

Daily VMT -

Reduction From

No-Action

(light-duty vehicle

miles)

VOC

Reduction from

No-Action

(tons/year)

CO

Reduction from

No-Action

(tons/year)

NOx

No-Action

(tons/year)

No-Action N/A N/A N/A N/A

Maglev System 800,000 83.2 1003.1 242.9

Notes: Emission Factors from automobiles: HC=0.37 g/mile; CO=4.46 g/mile; NOx=1.08 g/mile (FTA, MTA 1996); Running emissions

only considered

Source: (MTA, 2000)

4.8.6 Nevada

The analysis was done for the years 2005, 2015 and 2020. No existing case was included

for comparison.

The Maglev system is estimated to use 1,941.2 million MJ (1,840 billion BTU) per year.

This value includes the effect of power plant efficiency, system efficiency, line loss, as

well as use by stations and other Maglev facilities. Using information from the entire

grid from the Nevada Power Company, a mix of 45.5 percent coal, 35.3 percent natural

gas, and 19.2 percent hydropower was used.

Emission benefits for the reduced vehicle-miles traveled for on-road vehicles were also

considered. The reductions from three different groups were highlighted: 1) buses with

employees traveling from Las Vegas to Primm, 2) passenger vehicles with employees

traveling from Las Vegas to Primm, and, 3) passenger vehicles with tourists traveling

between Las Vegas and Primm. The participant estimated that Maglev operation would

result in a reduction in motor vehicle travel of 417,719 km (259,559 mi) daily. In
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 36

addition, there would be a reduction of 4,138 km (2,571 mi) of heavy-duty travel per day.

Both congested 72.4 km/h (45 mph) and uncongested 104.6 km/h (65 mph) conditions

were considered. Emission factors were derived from MOBILE5b, PART5, and

MVE17g. Transportation control measures from the SIP were also used and included

I/M, anti-tampering, stage II vapor recovery, oxygenated fuels, and low Reid Vapor

Pressures. No separate listing of these emission benefits was provided.

The net change of the power plant-emissions and the vehicle-miles traveled benefits were

calculated and decreases were found for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10 and CO2 in all years.

Increases in the emissions for SO2 were calculated for all years as well. The increases in

SO2 emissions are not expected to exceed the NAAQS. A summary of the changes in

emissions is presented in Table 4.8-6.

Table 4.8-6 – Net Changes in Emissions Resulting from the Proposed

Maglev Project

Mitigation measures can be suggested for fugitive dusts. These primarily focused on the

construction phase and included wetting soil and other particles during hours of

operation, treating soils or particles with substances that keep them together, making

them heavier and less likely to become airborne, and encapsulating surfaces using wood,

concrete or other materials so the soil and particles are not exposed to elements that could

make them airborne. Also, proper operation procedures could be required of the

contractor during construction and the drivers during system operation to avoid violating

the 15-minute idling rule for diesel vehicles. Final station design would incorporate

criteria to minimize delays in passenger loading and unloading.

4.8.7 Pennsylvania

The Environmental Assessment for the Pennsylvania Alternative states that the air quality

analysis was performed assuming that there are no direct emissions from the Maglev

system. Thus, the source of power and potential air emissions for the Maglev operations

are not considered in the air quality analysis. For roadway traffic, the investment grade

ridership analysis was used to estimate the annual reduction in vehicle miles traveled in

the region in the year 2020. Table 4.8-7 shows this decrease and the resulting emissions

benefits. The Maglev system is proposed as part of the Transportation Improvement Plan

that is covered by the SIP; the project is believed to be in conformity.

2005

Emissions

2015

Emissions

2020

Emissions

Pollutant Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr

CO -1,738 -1,515 -1,740

NOx -351 -340 -437

TOC -182 -171 -197

SO2 209 207 204

PM10 -9.8 -9.7 -12.3
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 37

Table 4.8-7 - Southwestern Pennsylvania Change in Relevant

Regional Criteria Pollutant/Precursor Emissions

Change in Emissions Based on Regional

Average Speed of 30.2 mph and Composite

Vehicle Emission Factors

(tons/year)

Ozone Precursors

Predicted Annual 2020

Regional VMT

Decrease

CO VOC NOX

979,820,000 -8776 -1180 -1461

4.8.8 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

air quality directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider potential

impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the Maglev

Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

resulting in increased intercity travel demand and ensuing congestion. Under the NoAction Alternative, motor vehicle and air travel demand is expected to be significantly

higher than that under any of the Maglev Alternatives. The increase in motor vehicle, air,

and light rail travel would result in a variety of transportation problems that may include,

among others, increased congestion and transportation infrastructure expansion. The

increase in air and motor vehicle intercity and long-distance travel would result in greater

air-pollutant emissions with potentially significant impacts to air quality at the local,

regional, and national levels. Increased operational congestion would also increase

emission levels, with the potential to exacerbate air quality problems even further. Based

on the stated concerns, it is expected that the No-Action Alternative could have an impact

on air quality. The significance of the impacts need to be determined on an alternative

specific basis, but are expected to range from moderate to significant.

4.9 SOLID WASTE

The waste from operating stations and administrative offices will be conventional waste

such as paper, office supplies, consumer waste, food products, and food packaging.

Wastes from track maintenance and maintenance facilities will include typical office

wastes as well as industrial wastes, including materials containing petroleum products,

solvents, batteries, scrap metals, and other used components. Although final locations of

the stations and maintenance facilities have not been identified, solid waste management,

including method of disposal and the identification of appropriate landfills, will likely be

contracted out to local waste disposal contractors. The associated environmental impact

will likely be to local municipal landfill and disposal facilities and their capacity to

handle the increased load. It is anticipated that current local solid waste facilities will be
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 38

able to handle the additional wastes generated as a result of Maglev operations. To the

extent that the local landfill and/or disposal option is at capacity, contractors will go to

the next available disposal location, thus minimizing potential impact to local disposal

locations.

Maglev operation is not considered a significant producer of solid or hazardous waste and

commercial contractors will dispose of conventional and hazardous solid waste at the

nearest landfill or hazardous waste disposal facility. Therefore, no significant adverse

direct nor indirect impacts to local solid waste capacity are anticipated. Because no

significant adverse impact from solid waste is expected, mitigation is not planned.

4.9.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

solid waste directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider potential

impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the Maglev

Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

spurring increases in intercity travel demand. Under the No-Action Alternative the

increase in motor vehicle, air, and light rail intercity travel would result in a variety of

transportation problems that may include, among others, increased congestion and

transportation infrastructure expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure for

intercity and long-distance travel could have impacts to solid waste. The extent of solid

waste impacts and the ability of existing facilities (e.g., landfills) to handle additional

wastes generated as a result of development and expansion of highway, air or light rail

transportation infrastructure would have to be examined at the local and regional levels.

4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND

ELDERLY AND DISABLED

There are potential impacts to socioeconomic status identified for each of the alternatives.

Potential positive impacts include secondary effects such as increased employment

mobility, reduced traffic congestion, increased productivity from faster commuting,

economic stimulation through increased employment opportunities, and other net gains.

Conversely, some potential impacts may be significant in the relocation of home or

business owners whose lands are needed for the Maglev construction. Other

consequences are not desirable, but their over all impact is relatively slight, and through

more specific design, can largely be mitigated. Many alternatives propose a corridor that

would share existing mass-transportation infrastructures, such as rail lines, highways and

airport facilities. In these cases, the marginal impact is quite negligible, even in the

context of evaluating cumulative consequences.

The basis for the data analysis is 1990 census data that is extrapolated to reflect 1999

conditions. These same data were used to estimate the numbers and categories of

populations under environmental justice (EJ) rules. Further analysis reveals the

comparative populations as a percent of the affected population as well as presenting data

reflecting the proportion of populations to the general populations in county or state data.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 39

This is to evaluate the notion of disproportionate impact to populations. There are

varying impacts to these covered populations as summarized below.

The information evaluating accessibility for the elderly and disabled focuses on

infrastructure requirements, i.e., the accessibility of supporting facilities such as parking

lots, terminals, and Maglev doors, seats, etc. Also addressed is existing infrastructure and

the required improvements to permit accessibility for the elderly and disabled, such as

transitions from sidewalk to terminal, ramps from parking lots, and appropriate platforms.

4.10.1 Socioeconomic

This section focuses on the impacts of potential property acquisitions by the project and

resulting displacements that may occur. The 1990 Census data provide the statistical

background for this issue. Census tract data were used to estimate the population within

each 610 m (2,000 ft) wide proposed corridor.

There are varying positive and negative socioeconomic impacts to affected populations

analyzed for each alternative:

§ Displacement of residents.

§ Displacement of businesses.

§ Creation of demand for related commercial and office uses.

§ Stressed locally-provided services.

Population, income, and racial-characteristics data from the 1990 U.S. Census were used

to develop a population profile for the project study area.

The construction of the Maglev guideway will require approximately, a 15.24 m (50 ft)

wide right-of-way for supports and possibly an access road, exclusive of cut fill which

will likely be required in many areas. The remainder of the land within 1,219 m (4,000

ft) wide corridors should be unaffected so that many of the residences and businesses

within the corridors should not have to be acquired.

Action Alternatives

Below is a summary of the socioeconomic impacts for all of the seven action alternatives.

At this early stage of design, impacts have not yet been fully quantified. However, it is

likely that the seven alternatives could experience similar impacts.

§ Specific acquisitions cannot be identified in this stage of design; however,

alignments are likely to be in existing rights-of-way with little additional

acquisition anticipated. The actual number of property acquisitions is

dependent on final-design requirements.

§ A Maglev system may increase job accessibility for low-income populations

that may stimulate local economies.

§ Creation and support of new and existing jobs is anticipated.

§ Project-increased development opportunities in areas that would enhance

mobility in the alternative, creating a net benefit. There are a small number of

acquisitions anticipated. Greatest land-use impact area is open space, which

includes space without structures, cemeteries, barren, forested and agricultural

lands.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 40

There are acquisitions and displacements anticipated; however, these should be

minimized by using existing utility and transportation corridors. Thus, a significant

adverse impact is not anticipated.

Mitigation

Suggested strategies for minimizing the number of displaced residents, employees, and

buildings include the following:

§ Adjust alignment to minimize impacts.

§ Take advantage of existing public or private rail/highway corridor rights-of-way

in the alignment wherever feasible and practicable. Many of the alternatives

propose the Maglev along existing transportation corridors. This strategy

minimizes acquisition and use of real private property and buildings outside

existing transportation holdings. The issue of affected environment becomes

one of marginal impact, or the difference between existing disturbances and

those changes resulting from the Maglev program.

§ Use existing drainage, utility or transportation rights-of-way.

§ Elevate Maglev and pass over directly impacted structures to eliminate total

structure and property takings.

§ Barriers or screening to block the visual and social impact.

§ Tunneling to mitigate noise and vibration, visual, historic, archaeological and

cultural, socioeconomic, and other impacts.

§ Strategically locate Maglev structural elements to minimize the visual and

social impact on the communities.

§ The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970,

as amended, (36 CFR Part 104 / 42 USC 4601) applies to all federal and

federally assisted activities that involve real property acquisitions, usage,

easements, displacements of persons or businesses, and relocations of persons

or businesses. Local state laws, policies, plans and programs will determine the

cost of real property acquisitions, the availability and cost of relocation sites,

and planned remuneration. Additional or unusual circumstances that may arise

may warrant other mitigation measures as determined on a case-by-case basis.

§ The procedures and practices of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policy Act (42 USC 4600) would govern where properties

must be acquired.

§ Address construction impacts on the communities.

§ Define potential environmental justice considerations during site specific EIS

process and implement significant community outreach programs to ensure the

full involvement of the effected communities along the Maglev facility.

§ Emphasize focused interactions with impacted minority and low-income groups,

actively seeking participation of these communities.

§ The proposed project could have a positive impact on some populations,

especially those located near Maglev stations, by improving access and mobility

between major commercial, residential, and transportation centers. Explore

improved traffic flow to and from these areas to enhance investment

opportunities and incentives for businesses and residents to locate to the area,

thus enhancing occupational opportunities for low-income residents.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 41

§ As part of the site specific EIS process, the project team proponents could work

closely with the local communities to make sure that the mitigation being

planned is adequate and acceptable to the community.

4.10.2 Environmental Justice

There are various potential, negative environmental-justice impacts to populations.

These include:

§ Disproportionately-high location of facilities or rights-of-way within areas

identified as low-income.

§ Disproportionately-high location facilities or rights-of-way within areas

identified as having a higher-than-average proportion of persons of any

minority.

§ Displacing minority or low income persons.

To evaluate disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations, the

populations covered under environmental justice rules were estimated using the 1990

census block data. As the Maglev Program progresses to final design, the population data

will be utilized to determine impacts to minority and low-income people. Displacements

and the location of facilities will be considered in the final impact analysis.

As an initial step, the impacts of potential property acquisitions and displacements that

may occur for each of the Maglev Alternatives have been estimated. Although the

system is planned to collocate in existing transportation rights-of-way, additional rightsof-way may be needed in some locations. Acquisitions and displacements could occur to

accommodate the guideways, stations, electrical substations, central and decentralized

maintenance centers, and other ancillary facilities along the route that are needed to

provide power to the Maglev systems. At a later stage of project development, an

iterative design and impact analysis process would identify the number of facilities and

the land-area requirements for each of the Maglev Alternatives and thus where mitigation

is needed for adverse impacts to persons or businesses affected by property acquisition.

The estimated number of structures taken, residential relocations and business

displacements, and the racial composition for each alternative are shown in Table 4.10-1

below. For all alternatives the 1990-census-block data provide the statistical background

for this issue. At this point in the design process, it is not possible to determine the exact

number of relocations necessary for the alternatives. Specific analysis of relocation and

other adverse effects must await the completion of more-detailed design, and would be

reported in a project specific EIS.

Each alternative had census-block groups within the study area which met the EJ lowincome/minority thresholds for further analysis, i.e., areas for which the minority and/or

low-income populations constitute a large portion and for which impacts may be

disproportionately borne by these populations.

The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money thresholds that vary by family size and

composition to determine persons living in poverty in the U.S. Table 4.10-2 shows the

1990 Census data indications of households and poverty levels within each alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 42

0-145 White

0-11 African American

0-12 Other

47-640 White

14-355 African American

1-15 Native American

0-5 Asian / Pacific

Islanders

3-47 Hispanic American

Workers

No specific information identified.

0-150

942

65-1,062

No specific information identified.

3

33.3%-73.3% White

3.9-20.8% African American

0.08%-0.19% Native American

0.18%-1.61% Asian / Pacific Islanders

0.24%-0.81% Hispanic American

0.08%-1.16% other

46.51% White

50.20% African American

0.06% Native American

1.04% Asian / Pacific

Islanders

2.18% Hispanic American

83-125 White

18-115 African American

0-1 Native American

0-1 Asian / Pacific Islanders

3-4 Hispanic American

214 White

31 Total minority

Estimated Number of Residents and Workers Displaced

(with number/percent by racial composition)

Residents

8.2%-56.4% White

4.2%-36.7% African American

0.2%-0.7% Native American

3.6%-18.3% Asian / Pacific Islanders

27.5%-59.6% Hispanic American

739

141-209

48.7%-70.6% White

21.9%-44.7% African American

3.1%-3.3% Native American

0.3% Asian / Pacific Islanders

2.2%-3.6% Hispanic American

0.8%-1.5% Other 245

3

74%-92% White

7%-23% African American

0.1%-0.3% Native American

0.4%-1.8% Asian / Pacific Islanders

0.4%-0.8% Hispanic American

BusinessNo specific

information

identified.

0-5

34

20-37

No specific

information

identified.

0

No specific

information

identified.

Estimated Number of Structures

Taken

Residence

No specific

information

identified.

0-39

86

2-74

No specific

information

identified.

135

No specific

information

identified.

California

Florida

(30.3m / 100 ft)

Georgia

LouisianaMaryland

Nevada

2

Pennsylvania

(183m/600ft)

1 Percentage By Route; 

2 Low- and moderate-income and minority persons displaced 

3 16 (6.5%)Low Income; 19 (7.76%) Moderate Income; 31 (12.7%) Minority; Source: State EAs

Table 4.10-1 - Summary of Ranges of Potential Residence and Business Takings
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 43

Table 4.10-2 - Households Below Poverty Level

Total Number

Households

Number of

Households Below

Poverty Threshold

Percent

Households Below

Poverty Threshold

California1

52,408-133,277 7,408-22,310 14.14%-22.5%

Florida 2,539-34,673 63-236 2%-8%

Georgia 58,437 10,453 17.9%

Louisiana1

18,008-19,155 5,661-5712 29.6%-31.7%

Maryland 45,386-61,010 4,336-4,559 7.5%-9.7%

Nevada 39,722 962 2%

Pennsylvania 1,392-9,384 (residences) 202-2,184 (persons) 5.8%-13.6% (persons)

Range signifies alternative routes.

1

 By Route

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEC, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)

To adequately consider minority and low-income populations in the alternatives, the

impact findings for other potential impacts to the socioeconomic status will be compared

once final route alternatives are selected with those areas of minority and low-income

populations that meet the EJ thresholds for further analysis. Potential positive impacts

include secondary affects such as increased employment mobility, improved living

conditions for those whose properties are acquired, reduced traffic congestion, economic

stimulation through increased employment opportunities, and other net gains.

Assessments of non-proportional adverse impacts on minority and low-income

populations will also be made. These include: public health and safety, noise and

vibration, transportation and traffic, air quality, land use, visual resources.

Another area of potential impact for the elderly and disabled is emergency evacuation.

Use of traditional methods such as inflatable chutes would be difficult for aged and

disabled passengers, but not inconsistent with difficulty encountered in other

transportation modes, including air, rail, and public transit. All Maglev vehicles,

operating conditions, emergency procedures, and support and maintenance operations

would meet all applicable FRA regulations. This would not be a significant impact.

The proposed alternatives are not anticipated to impose any additional barriers to the

aged and disabled. In fact, improved access and mobility from the proposed Maglev

implementation will provide a beneficial impact to these populations. Stations will have

multi-modal connections to provide access to persons who do not drive, and will be

disabled accessible.

Below is a summary of the environmental justice impacts for each of the alternatives at

this stage of the planning process. More detailed and comprehensive analysis of likely

environmental consequences to EJ populations will be conducted as alignments are

selected and detailed designs proceed.

California

The study corridor and candidate route pass through areas with higher proportions of

minority and low-income populations. However, these impacts are expected to be
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 44

marginal since the majority of those sections with higher proportion of minority and lowincome populations are currently disturbed by existing transportation corridors. The EJ

impacts to population would appear to be minimal and do not at this stage suggest any

significant adverse effects.

Florida

The population data do not indicate concentrations of minority and low-income

populations along candidate routes. As a result, there will be no adverse EJ impacts to

populations.

Georgia

Although there are some seemingly disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income

populations along a specific segment, the 2000-foot wide study corridor lies within an

existing transportation route. There is potential for significant environmental justice

impacts to some population groups. With alignment adjustments within the corridor, the

following site-specific alignment concerns should be considered during site-specific EIS:

§ Alignment within the city of Atlanta should reconsider the displacement of

African-American people.

§ Reconsider the alignment along Northside Drive and the impact it causes to the

neighborhood.

§ Reconsider the impact to African-American churches and public housing projects

if Maglev is constructed in the vicinity of Northside Drive.

§ Reconsider underground alternatives to minimize visual impacts in the vicinity of

Northside Drive.

§ Reconsider the potential impacts to all churches, schools, hospitals, and other

sensitve receptors.

§ Reconsider the impact to minority communities in the city of Atlanta.

§ Consider more public involvement with the minority community within the city

of Atlanta and schedule meetings that do not conflict with other neighborhood

activities.

§ Reconsider alternative routing alignments for the Vine city community.

§ Identify how many people could be displaced by each routing alternative.

§ Consider involving the impacted communities in the planning process.

§ Consider the problems facing Atlanta and the sacrificice of a few for the benefit

of many.

§ For work around the Atlanta University Center (AUC), consider that it may be

considered 4(f) land and may be listed on the National Register.

§ Consider a wider definition of “public involvement” to reflect both the length and

diversity of the corridor. Specifically, add minority and community based

organizations to the public involvement program.

§ Select meeting locations that serve AUC and Vine city areas.

§ Consider partnering with AUC.

§ Consider different heights of the Maglev guideway to mitigate impacts to

community adhesion and adverse health impacts.

§ Reconsider alignment alternatives that minimize impact to village at Castleberry

Hill and Herndon Homes.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 45

§ Consider representation of Fulton County, city of Atlanta, and directly impacted

educational institutions on a study committee to address above concerns.

§ Consider financial contributions from Cobb County.

§ Consider relocating Maglev along I-75 and I-85.

Louisiana

The data do not project any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and

low-income populations. There are no significant EJ impacts to any population.

Maryland

Data do not suggest any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome populations. There are no significant EJ impacts to any population.

Nevada

The Hispanic population forms a greater proportion of the total corridor population than

the Hispanic populations of the MSA as a whole, but still falls under the minimum

requirements outlined in Environmental Justice rules. There are minimum EJ impacts to

the population.

Pennsylvania

The data do not suggest any disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and

low-income populations. There are no significant EJ impacts to any populations.

Mitigation

Potential mitigation strategies are identical to the approaches for socioeconomic impacts

discussed above, plus:

§ Where adverse impacts to low-income or minority populations are anticipated,

mitigation measures to be considered include avoidance, minimization, and

compensation.

§ The best mitigation is avoidance. The first way to mitigate impacts on minority

and low-income populations is to be aware of their locations as the project is

being defined and to try to avoid affecting them by siting project facilities to

avoid impacts.

§ To the extent that any alternative has an impact on minority and low-income

populations, design alternatives will be considered to avoid undue adverse

consequences.

§ If impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation strategies developed for individual

environmental issues, such as noise or traffic impacts, should be used to

mitigate impacts to minority and low-income populations located in close

proximity to the Maglev route.

§ The placing of the elevated guideways over and through communities brings

with it significant impacts: displacement, community cohesion, visual and EMF

issues. Because some areas will experience multiple effects from the proposed

Project, mitigations must be considered above and beyond those being

considered for each individual resource impact. Additional mitigation measures

may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts in areas that are subject to
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 46

multiple significant impacts, and for areas where the impacts appear to

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations in these areas.

4.10.3 Elderly and Disabled

Action Alternatives

Potential impacts to the elderly and disabled are similar for each of the seven alternatives.

These impacts can be summarized for those alternatives as follows: For the disabled and

the elderly, the transitions encountered from the surrounding land-uses to the Maglev

station, and within the station, would involve “way finding” through a barrier-free route

from the surrounding access points to the train. This would include accessible horizontaland vertical-transportation means as well as provisions on the “way finding” and

emergency information alarm systems for the visual and hearing impaired. In addition,

elderly and disabled passengers can experience difficulty using transportation facilities

and following emergency-evacuation procedures.

Mitigation

All Maglev system elements will be designed, constructed, operated, and staffed to

satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because design and management

strategies should be in place, no specific mitigation strategies beyond already established

requirements are anticipated. To address potential barriers, the Maglev Alternatives

would include access in accordance with the ADA. With regard to hiring practices, there

should be a conscientious hiring program to achieve the spirit of the ADA. All applicable

ADA guidelines in force (Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 36 CFR

Part 1191) would be followed to ensure the project meets the goals of the ADA. While

compliance with the above regulatory requirements ensures a maximum degree of

mitigation legally, the spirit of accessibility may include additional means. This may

include the design of a seamless and effortless pathway through all physical transitions

encountered.

With a proactive design and personnel management strategies, all ADA requirements

should be met. Thus, there should not be a significant adverse impact to the elderly and

disabled from the construction and operation of any of the seven Maglev Alternatives.

4.10.4 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

socioeconomics, environmental justice, or the elderly or disabled directly from a Maglev

system. However, it is important to consider potential impacts from the No-Action

Alternative that could arise from precluding the Maglev Deployment Program and the

potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

Under the No-Action Alternative, there will be no property acquisitions required, nor

displacement of any population associated with Maglev infrastructure. However, it is

anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

promoting increases in intercity travel demand. Thus, under the No-Action Alternative it

is expected that there will be greater need for air and road transportation infrastructure

expansion. The construction of additional infrastructure for intercity and long-distance
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 47

travel could have negative socioeconomic impacts such as property acquisitions and

displacement of residential and business populations, and stresses on locally provided

services. In addition, transportation infrastructure expansion could result in

disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations, as well as in

effects to the elderly and disabled populations; impacts could include residential and

business displacement, noise, traffic, community cohesion disturbance, and visual effects.

The nature and extent of impacts will have to be determined on a local basis and would

need to be compared to those incurred under the Maglev Alternatives.

4.11 LAND USE, FARMLAND AND 4(f) RESOURCES

Land use and development patterns result from a variety of factors including access,

distance from goods and services, availability of transportation links, land ownership,

location of population or workforce, and zoning controls, among many others. Land use

patterns – the specific locations of various types of land uses – often follow historical use

patterns, but are heavily influenced by planning initiatives and zoning ordinances in

effect at the local, county (parish), or state levels. Current development in the areas

surrounding the Maglev Alternatives largely reflects the twentieth-century proliferation

of roadways and highways to serve and connect growing population centers, tempered by

the specific types and densities of development allowed by zoning.

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program will involve the development of a

major transportation system. There may be a number of effects on land use. The

provision of new access to previously inaccessible undeveloped lands may stimulate

development. Conversely, the transportation corridor may act as a barrier, disrupting

neighborhood cohesion or inhibiting pedestrian or vehicular access to previously

accessible destinations. The following sections discuss potential impacts on land use

from the proposed Maglev Alternatives, based on preliminary project planning.

Specific land use effects are best evaluated on a case-by-case basis with field verification,

once a preliminary design of the Maglev system is available. Direct impacts such as

building displacements cannot be determined at this time, but it is expected that some

residential and commercial relocations will be required. It is also likely that land use

changes and/or rezoning may be required in areas where the Maglev system is

incompatible with existing land use.

The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1984 is to minimize the

extent to which federal programs convert farmland to non-agricultural uses (Pub.L. 97-

98, Sec 1539-1549, 7 USC 4201, et seq). Soils classified by the United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or

unique are collectively protected by this Act. In addition to this federal regulation,

several states have enacted their own regulations to aid in the protection of farmland

resources.

The FFPA requires a farmland impact evaluation for applicable federally funded projects.

The Maglev Deployment Program must adhere to this requirement. Upon advancement

of a Maglev Alternative, coordination with the NRCS is required through the completion

of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1002) for each impacted
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 48

county or parish. The form is used by the NRCS to evaluate the impact to designated

prime, unique, statewide or locally important farmland soils.

A description of potential impacts to farmland resources associated with each of the

proposed Maglev Alternatives is provided below. Impacts are based on preliminary

planning and resource assessments at a general level of detail. A more refined

assessment will be included in subsequent project environmental documentation.

Some forms of recreational opportunities and parklands are protected from impacts due to

federal projects. Impacts to coastal, water-dependent recreation are considered under the

Coastal Zone Management Act, whereby potential impacts may be reviewed and

regulated by the administering state. Impacts to significant publicly owned parks and

recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, as well as certain historic sites, are regulated

under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §303(c)). Under

Section 4(f), the Secretary of Transportation shall approve a project that requires use of

such areas only if (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the Section 4(f)

land and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resources

being affected.

Indirect impacts from Maglev noise or visual intrusions could occur which might

diminish the function and/or use and enjoyment of some recreational

resources/opportunities. However, the appropriateness of Maglev near parks is likely to

be seen differently by children than by adults. Children are likely to see the introduction

of Maglev as an amenity; a feature that because of its visual entertainment value

increases attractiveness or value of a park that is within view of a passing Maglev train.

The novelty of the system, different from experiences to date, could be considered

enjoyable, a pleasantness which delights the child’s eye. Thus, Maglev may actually be a

positive benefit to children when located near a park.

Although a detailed assessment of impacts to these resources are not possible at this

conceptual level of planning and design, an assessment of potential impacts to

recreational opportunities and parklands will aid the evaluation of Maglev Alternatives.

A Section 4(f) evaluation will be included in any project specific environmental impact

statement that involves a use of Section 4(f) protected resources.

The following information generally describes the potential for land use impacts as well

as recreational and parkland impacts associated with each Maglev Alternative. Historic

and archaeological impacts are discussed in Section 4.13 and are not covered here.

4.11.1 California

General land use impacts associated with the California Maglev Alternative would

include increased pressures for development and/or redevelopment of areas surrounding

proposed station locations and could lead to higher development densities. The types of

land uses are not likely to change in those areas where transit facilities already exist. If a

station is planned for a new area, land uses may change to commercial and service

oriented developments that cater to commuters. A beneficial result could be an increase

in infill developments. In addition, any planned redevelopments along the proposed

Maglev corridor, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed stations, may likely see an

accelerated schedule. The availability of high-speed Maglev service to a large
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 49

metropolitan area is likely to increase the rate of residential development in outlying

areas near proposed Maglev stations. Since the proposed Maglev corridor follows

existing transportation corridors, potential impacts to surrounding land uses and to costs

associated with property acquisition are expected to be insignificant.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

farmlands since the system would be built predominantly within existing transportation

rights-of-way, and because no farmlands have been identified adjacent to the Maglev

Alternative right-of-way. However, secondary impacts on farmland from induced

development are possible from this project. From a regional perspective, land in the

eastern-most section of the corridor is less expensive than land in and around the Los

Angeles Central Business District and, therefore, is more susceptible to development

pressures. Farmlands in this eastern-most section of the corridor are presently being

converted to residential and other land uses as a consequence of the regional demand for

housing and other economic growth factors. Implementation of Maglev service in this

area may accelerate the pace of planned farmland conversion, and may increase new

demand for farmland conversion. It is expected that farmland conversion would be a

moderate adverse impact to farmlands in the alternative.

The implementation of the California Maglev Alternative has the potential to pose minor

negative impacts on land use and farmlands, and a potential for a moderate adverse

impact to parklands. Hence, FRA has concluded that there is a potential for a moderate

adverse impact to land use in the alternative.

4.11.2 Florida

Based on preliminary design, using land use projections from the Brevard County

Comprehensive Plan, and assuming a 1.219 km (4,000 ft) study corridor, the participant

estimated that project deployment has the potential to impact between 54.3 ha (134.2 ac)

and 6,924.8 ha (17,111.4 ac) of residential use; between 23.6 ha (58.3 ac) and 61.3 ha

(151.4 ac) of institutional land use; between 6.2 and 50.2 ha (15.3-124 ac) of commercial

land use; up to 2.2 ha (5.4 ac) of office land use; up to 52.9 ha (130.7 ac) of light

industrial land use; up to 31.4 ha (77.6 ac) of heavy industrial land use; and between

1,214 ha (3,000 ac and 1,761.2 ha (4,351.9 ac) of open space. Given the magnitude of the

potentially impacted areas, FRA concludes that the project may significantly impact

general land use in the alternative.

Construction and operation of the Maglev project could result in impacts to both prime

and unique farmlands, depending on the final guideway selected. The total potentially

impacted farmland area ranges between 8.5 ha (20.9 ac) and 34.6 ha (85.4 ac) of prime

farmland impact, including significant areas of citrus groves (unique farmlands) and

designated farmlands. Secondary impacts on farmland from induced development also

are possible from this project, particularly near proposed passenger stations. Given the

large areas and value of potentially impacted farmlands, it is expected that the project

may have a significant adverse impact to the farmland resources of the alternative.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreational opportunities in the region. However, in some cases, land may be acquired

from passive recreational areas and open water. The Maglev system, if implemented,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 50

will likely increase access to and among some recreational venues in the region. The

Florida project resides in the coastal zone, and would therefore undergo coastal zone

consistency review, wherein potential impacts to coastal, water-dependent recreation

would be considered. Further stages of project design will need to be tailored to avoid or

minimize, to the extent possible, such impacts. The project will have a direct impact on

Section 4(f) properties, requiring acquisition. Depending on final design and guideway

selection, the project could result in between 39.0 ha (96.4 ac) and 65.0 ha (160.7 ac) of

direct impact, primarily to the Scrub Jay Refugia Florida Conservation and Recreation

Land (CARL) Project Area and the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. In addition

to direct impacts, the potential for indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources also exists.

Indirect impacts from increased noise levels or visual intrusions could occur that might

diminish the function and/or use and enjoyment of some of these Section 4(f) resources.

A detailed assessment, requiring a level of information that is not available at the

conceptual planning level, is needed. Given the total areas and value of potentially

affected parklands, FRA concludes that the project would have a significant adverse

impact to parkland resources in the alternative.

The implementation of the Florida Maglev Alternative has the potential to pose

significant negative impacts on general land use, farmlands, and parklands. And there is

a potential for a significant adverse impact to land use in the alternative.

4.11.3 Georgia

The southern portion of the Georgia Alternative, from Hartsfield-Atlanta International

Airport to Town Center in Cobb County, is dominated by existing rail and highway

facilities that have attracted land use types requiring enhanced transportation systems.

The Maglev facility may provide an improved level of transportation service that could

enhance the attractiveness of this alignment and compliment the existing land use. The

only location where the Maglev facility may not be consistent with existing land-use is

where it intersects the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, in the southern

portion of the alternative. Hence, implementation of the Georgia Maglev Alternative

would have a beneficial impact on the existing land uses in the area.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreation opportunities in the region. It will likely increase access to and among some

recreational venues in the region. This alternative is not in the coastal zone, so it will not

have potential impacts related to coastal, water-dependent recreation. With respect to

parklands, the Maglev Alternative could result in direct impacts to athletic fields

associated with a school utilized by the neighborhood community. Direct impacts to a

4.5 ha (11.0 ac) of park are also possible. This park may incur considerable impacts from

the guideway, depending on the ultimate location of the tunnel opening. The exact

impact to this park cannot be determined at this conceptual level of planning and design.

The Maglev Alternative passes directly through the Palisades Unit of the Chattahoochee

National Recreation Area, a Section 4(f) resource. Despite directly crossing this area, the

vast majority of this recreational area will be unaffected. The majority of the recreational

activities associated with this recreational area occur up-river from the point where the

Maglev Alternative would be located. Once constructed, the operational Maglev system

should have minimal impact to the area as a natural and recreational resource. Other
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 51

recreational resources that would be directly impacted by the proposed Maglev

Alternative include one golf course, a cinema, and an indoor rock climbing facility. A

detailed assessment, requiring a level of information that is not available at the

conceptual planning level is needed in order to determine whether any of these impacts

will be Section 4(f) impacts. Given the fact that the Maglev Alternative could impact

several parklands, there is a potential for a moderate adverse impact to recreation areas in

the alternative.

The implementation of the Georgia Maglev Alternative has the potential to provide some

benefits to general land use in the alternative. However, it also has the potential to

adversely impact farmlands and recreation areas. There is a potential for a moderate

adverse impact to land use in the alternative.

4.11.4 Louisiana

The Louisiana Maglev Alternative could positively impact land use in the area by

facilitating the movement of people following existing patterns of suburban residential

development and population growth in the western and northwestern sections of the

alternative. The northwestern area is a very fast growing area that is expected to see an

increase in population density. The Maglev Alternative could serve as a focal point for

population decentralization. In the south and southeastern sections, enhanced access to

and from existing and planned facilities could be a beneficial impact of the project.

Much of the proposed Maglev Alternative in the southeastern area will follow existing

transportation alternative rights-of-way. This is considered beneficial since the Maglev

Alternative will be compatible with existing land use. Based on this information, project

implementation could have a moderate beneficial impact to land use patterns in the

alternative.

There are no known agricultural protection areas or active farms in the vicinity of the

proposed Maglev Alternative. In the northwestern section of the alternative, prime

farmland soils are located south of Lake Pontchartrain and will be impacted by the

proposed Maglev guideway and the planned passenger terminal. Approximately 58 ha

(143 ac) of prime farmland soils will be impacted. This area is not actively farmed and

there are no current plans to commence farming in this area. There are prime farmland

soils mapped in the southern and southeastern region of the alternative, but these areas

are completely urbanized and no longer suitable to be farmed. Secondary impacts on

farmland from induced development also are possible from this project, particularly in

the vicinity of proposed stations. Since the Maglev Alternative could have direct and

secondary impacts on prime farmlands, the project would have a moderate negative

impact on farmland resources.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreation opportunities in the region. It would increase access to and among some

recreational venues in the region. The alternative resides in the coastal zone, and would

therefore undergo coastal zone consistency review, wherein potential impacts to coastal,

water-dependent recreation would be considered. Further stages of project design will

need to be tailored to avoid or minimize, to the extent possible, such impacts. No direct

impacts to parklands are anticipated from construction and operation of the proposed

Maglev Alternative. A designated bicycle route runs primarily perpendicular to the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 52

proposed Maglev Alternative. Impacts could be avoided with an elevated guideway and

proper placement of guideway support structures. Based on preliminary design, impacts

to recreation areas would be minor.

The implementation of the Louisiana Maglev Alternative has the potential to provide

some benefits to general land use in the alternative. However, it also has the potential to

pose moderate impacts on farmlands and recreation areas. Hence, it is concluded that

there is a potential for a minor adverse impact to land use in the alternative.

4.11.5 Maryland

Residential and in some cases institutional land use categories are most likely to be

sensitive to the introduction of a Maglev guideway and associated structures and

operation. Industrial, commercial, and open space land uses may be more adaptable to a

Maglev corridor passing directly through or adjacent to these areas. The specific

engineering characteristics of the Maglev guideway design and construction methods will

in large part determine the effects on land use. The guideway is expected to be elevated.

Essentially, the Maglev guideway and associated passenger stations would be designed to

have the potential to provide a positive influence on existing and future land use. Since

the Maglev Alternative follows existing transportation corridors, potential negative

impacts on general land use are expected to be insignificant.

Farmland that could be impacted by the proposed Maglev Alternative is associated with

the BARC in Prince George’s County just outside of the Capital Beltway. The actual

impact acreage will be assessed as design progresses. Secondary impacts on farmland

from induced development also are possible from this project, particularly in the vicinity

of proposed passenger stations. Given the importance of the BARC, the project could

pose significant adverse impacts to farmland resources.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreation opportunities in the region. It will likely increase access to and among some

recreational venues in the region. Portions of the project reside in the coastal zone, and

would therefore undergo coastal zone consistency review, wherein potential impacts to

coastal, water-dependent recreation would be considered. Further stages of project

design would need to be tailored to avoid or minimize, to the extent possible, such

impacts. Based on the conceptual level of planning and design, it does not appear that

land from any public park would be needed for the construction of the candidate Maglev

guideway. No direct parkland impacts are expected. Indirect impacts to nearby public

parks, however, are likely to diminish the function and/or use and enjoyment of these

recreational resources. A detailed assessment, requiring a level of information that is not

available at the conceptual planning level, is needed. Recreational opportunities are

numerous and diverse throughout the study region. Implementation of a Maglev

transportation system connecting Baltimore with Washington, D.C., could enhance those

opportunities, particularly in the center-city areas. Since only indirect impacts to some

recreational areas are anticipated, and some positive effects could occur, the project

would have an insignificant adverse impact to the recreation areas in the alternative.

The implementation of the proposed Maglev Alternative could have a minor adverse

impact on general land use and recreational opportunities, and a significant adverse
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 53

impact to farmlands. Thus, there is a potential for a moderate adverse impact to land use

in the alternative.

4.11.6 Nevada

The majority of land affected by the project is open desert. Developed land affected by

the Maglev Alternative is primarily associated with a mobile home park in Primm, in the

southern area of the alternative. Other developed properties that are affected are

warehouse and commercial areas south of Downtown Las Vegas, in the northern area of

the alternative. Specific land use impacts include 1.64 ha (4.06 ac) of residential areas

associated with the mobile home park in Primm; between 0.13 ha (0.31 ac) and 0.19 ha

(0.48 ac) of industrial areas; between 0.39 ha (0.96 ac) and 0.49 ha (1.20 ac) of

commercial areas; 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) of non-profit/community areas; and between 0.11

and 0.19 ha (0.27-0.48 ac) of transportation/communications/utilities areas.

The Nevada Maglev Alternative is mostly accommodated within existing highway rightsof-way. Most of the commercial development within the proposed Maglev Alternative is

located in Las Vegas and is hotel/casino based. The intensity of this type of development

along the urbanized area of the Maglev system is expected to increase as the

redevelopment trend in Las Vegas continues. The Maglev Alternative could provide

enhanced access/connectivity between these commercial developments. No conflicts

with existing land use plans or plans of development have been identified at this stage.

As part of a joint rail station, Maglev is planned to be one of several modes of transit

serving downtown Las Vegas. Planned increases in residential and commercial densities

could increase demand for Maglev, and Maglev could be expected to attract convenience

commercial development in the vicinity of proposed station locations. Since there are no

anticipated conflicts with existing and planned land uses, and the project could have

beneficial impacts to existing transportation corridors, the project could have a minor

positive impact to general land use in the alternative.

Since no farmlands were identified in the alternative, there will be no direct or secondary

farmland impacts associated with the proposed Maglev system.

Construction of the Nevada Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreation opportunities in the region, since the alternative will not traverse through

recreational areas. It may increase access to and among some recreational venues in the

region. This alternative is not in the coastal zone, so it will not have potential impacts

related to coastal, water-dependent recreation. The proposed Maglev Alternative will not

result in direct or indirect impacts to public parklands, since it would not encroach upon

or be adjacent to any Section 4(f) lands. Detailed cultural resource studies and site

investigations will be conducted as part of the site specific Environmental Impact

Statement. Since the project does not cross-recreational areas or parklands, there would

be an insignificant impact from project implementation.

The implementation of the Nevada Maglev Alternative has the potential to provide some

benefits to general land use in the alternative. There are no farmlands in the alternative,

and there would be insignificant adverse impacts to recreational areas. Hence, there is a

potential for an insignificant adverse impact to land use in the alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 54

4.11.7 Pennsylvania

Open space and residential land uses would incur the greatest impact from the proposed

Maglev Alternative, followed by commercial and heavy industrial. Specific land use

impacts vary depending on the area of the alternative, and on the guideway selected.

Some alternative regions pass through areas characterized by heavy industrial and light

industrial land use and therefore have a substantially greater impact on these land uses

than do other segments. The project could impact up to 6 ha (16 ac) of institutional land

use. Increased pressures for development and/or redevelopment of areas surrounding

proposed passenger station locations could lead to higher development densities. The

types of land uses are not likely to change in those areas where transit facilities already

exist. Where a station is planned for a new area, land uses may change to commercial and

service oriented developments that cater to commuters. A beneficial result could be an

increase in infill developments. No significant adverse impacts to general land use are

expected, since the areas impacted are small, and the project has the potential to provide

some benefits on future development.

The proposed guideway would result in impacts to both prime farmland soils and

designated Agricultural Security Areas (areas consisting of 101 ha (250 ac) or more of

farmland under the ownership of one or more people). The actual impact acreage will be

assessed as design progresses. Secondary impacts on farmland from induced

development also are possible from this project, particularly in the vicinity of proposed

passenger stations. Given the large areas of potentially impacted farmlands, the project

could have a significant adverse impact to farmland resources in the alternative.

Construction of the candidate Maglev Alternative is not likely to have direct impacts on

recreation opportunities in the region, and may increase access to and among some

recreational venues in the region. This alternative is not in the coastal zone, so it will not

have potential impacts related to coastal, water-dependent recreation. To some extent,

the majority of the alternative passes through or runs adjacent to existing parklands.

Depending on the actual alternative region, direct impacts to parklands could range from

0.4 ha (1.0 acre) to 40 ha (100 ac). Indirect impacts to nearby public parks also could

occur that might diminish the function and/or use and enjoyment of these recreational

resources. Areas potentially impacted include neighborhood parks, amusement parks,

theatres for the performing arts, and amphitheaters, among others. A detailed assessment,

requiring a level of information that is not available at the conceptual planning level, is

needed. Given the large areas of potentially indirectly impacted parklands, the project

could have a moderate adverse impact to recreational areas in the alternative.

The implementation of the Pennsylvania Maglev Alternative would have an insignificant

impact on general land use in the alternative. However, it has also been determined that

there are large areas of farmlands and recreational areas that could be adversely impacted

by the project. Hence, there is a potential for a significant adverse impact to land use in

the alternative.

4.11.8 Mitigation

The implementation of a high-speed Maglev system with conveniently accessible

passenger transfer stations could serve as the focus of transit-oriented development, if
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 55

such a land-use strategy were desired and implemented by local planning and zoning

officials. Transit-oriented development could focus on the creation of commercial

activity centers with associated housing components and could negate potentially adverse

land-use impacts. Essentially, it is the responsibility of the local planning and zoning

authority to institute appropriate land-use regulations to guide the path of development

into the future. To avoid potential conflicts with all land-use plans affecting Maglev

alignments, project proponents will continue to coordinate with local governments and

their planning and zoning departments to integrate the Maglev alignment and related

activities into the land-use plans as they are amended.

The use of existing highway- and railroad-corridor rights-of-way, drainage easements,

and utility-corridor rights-of-way would substantially reduce potential impacts to

surrounding land uses. The construction of an elevated Maglev guideway in land-usesensitive areas could also minimize impacts.

During design of the selected Maglev Alternative and preparation of contract plans, the

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service and the

relevant State agricultural department, shall be contacted to discern strategies that may be

appropriate to minimize impact to farmland resources. The elevation of the guideway in

certain farmland-resource areas is one design approach that may be effective in reducing

irreversible farmland impacts. Effective strategies to mitigate secondary impacts may

entail coordination and planning efforts of local or county (parish) zoning agencies.

Direct impacts to recreational facilities and parks should be avoided to the extent

possible. This may entail shifting the Maglev-guideway support structures. If necessary,

relocation of directly impacted recreational facilities, such as playgrounds, public

swimming pools, and athletic facilities may be possible if adjacent, accessible vacant land

is available. As previously mentioned, significant recreational areas and public parks are

considered Section 4(f) resources. Every effort should be made in the planning,

development, and refinement of the selected Maglev-Alternative alignment to avoid these

areas to the greatest extent practicable. If avoidance is not practicable and the resource is

impacted, measures to minimize harm should be developed and implemented through

direct consultation with the appropriate authority having jurisdiction over the impacted

public-recreational resource.

4.11.9 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would not advance the Maglev Deployment Program and the

Maglev Alternatives. It is important to consider potential effects from the No-Action

Alternative that could arise from precluding the provision of transportation and other

related benefits from the Maglev Deployment Program. Under the No-Action

Alternative, there would be no direct or secondary impacts to general land use, farmlands,

and recreational areas and parklands in the Maglev Alternatives. Alterations to land use

and zoning will continue across the nation, as usual, during the land development

process. Also, conversion of farmland resources to non-agricultural uses, and of

recreational areas will continue across the nation.

Under the No-Action Alternative, travel by motor vehicle is expected to be significantly

higher than that under the Maglev deployment alternative. The increase in motor vehicle
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 56

travel would result in a variety of transportation problems that may include, among

others, increased congestion and road expansion. The construction of additional

infrastructure for long-distance motor vehicle travel to address these problems could have

considerable impacts to land use (general, farmlands, and recreation areas and parklands)

from alteration and conversion. These impacts would need to be examined on a local and

regional basis. These impacts could potentially be greater than those incurred under the

construction alternative.

4.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

Maglev Alternatives will traverse a wide variety of local visual settings, including:

residential, commercial and industrial areas, areas that adjoin major thoroughfares and

freeways and along railroad corridors, and central business districts. Alternatives may

pass through open areas and near parks and historic properties. Many venues near the

candidate corridors would be locations where the guideway can be seen, and which can

be seen from persons in the Maglev vehicles, including private residences or public

gathering places such as parks.

Maglev system elements have the potential for creating visual impacts from a variety of

perspectives. From many locations the guideway will be seen against the backdrop of

mountains and urban skylines that help define the visual image of some locations. From

closer perspectives, the system will be seen as it crosses above thoroughfares that

intersect the candidate route. Although the guideway would be a prominent visual

feature, it may appear similar to extant structures (elevated sections of freeways and

interchanges) and activities. From an aerial view, the elevated guideway would likely be

perceived as similar to the ribbon-like lines of the railroads, freeway network and major

thoroughfares. Where the Maglev guideway is co-located along highly developed

transportation corridors, it may appear to merge with the existing visual environment.

In addition to visual changes associated with the guideway, the project has the potential

to introduce visual impacts in station and maintenance facility areas. The Maglev system

could change the visual siting of the alternative in those areas where they are different

from the types of structures currently found in these areas. Parking at the stations may

also introduce a change in visual character. Because Maglev facilities would be elevated,

relatively massive, and cover large land areas when parking is included, they may appear

oversized for their surroundings. This may be especially true where land uses are

generally low scale in height and of moderate density. The Maglev facilities would be

markedly different than their surroundings, which would present both opportunities and

constraints for their ultimate design. Siting, relationship to adjoining uses, and

compatibility in scale will be important factors in minimizing adverse impacts on their

surroundings. Planning and design have not advanced to a degree to know the exact

locations, nor the shape and size of Maglev facilities, so an impact assessment of these

structures cannot yet be made.

Visual impacts may also arise at the locations of power substations if the guideway

facilities are markedly different from current infrastructure. Because the substations must

be placed at approximately equal spacings along the route, industrial land uses may not
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 57

be available in the vicinity. In such circumstance, the substations could be incorporated

in non-intrusive structures or facilities.

Because the candidate alternatives traverse such a great distance, there are thousands of

viewsheds and individual views where the introduction of Maglev facilities could have a

significant impact. Due to the length of the alternatives, their variations in composition

and characteristics, and the limited amount of design development that has occurred, all

potential visual impact consequences have not yet been defined. Although in many cases

public comments have not been received that would enable a locally responsive

consideration of the significance of visual impacts, the following general conclusions

about impacts appear reasonable:

§ Parks / Open Spaces / Public Properties - Visual impacts from parks, open

spaces and schools along the route could be significant, depending on the

proximity of the Maglev structures and the relationship to such sites. These

views are likely to be considered as important community assets, however in

some settings Maglev may have visual entertainment value.

§ Residential Areas - The visual impacts of the elevated Maglev structure, which

would generally be 9 m (30 ft) above grade, would probably be considered

significant to residential areas that immediately adjoin the candidate alignment.

An elevated guideway would introduce opportunities for seeing into private

areas that were previously not generally visible to the public, such as backyards

or through windows into residences. Residences previously visually shielded

from highway traffic by noise walls could be exposed to the elevated guideway,

reopening this issue in many residential areas along the candidate alternatives.

The change in these views from proximate or more distant residential areas that

are blocked by the aerial structure may be significant as well.

§ Commercial/Industrial Areas - There could be visual impacts in the many

commercial and industrial areas that adjoin the candidate alignment. Although

there may be individually-sensitive views in these areas, to the extent that views

may not be a contributing factor to the viability of commercial and industrial

land uses, or that views may be of less concern to building occupants, visual

impacts are likely to be less significant than for residential areas or park lands.

Current views in commercial and industrial areas along the candidate route are

influenced by existing aerial utility lines and aerial elements of transportation

facilities, such that the introduction of an aerial Maglev structure may be

consistent with the existing visual environment.

§ Locations of Other Similar Use - The introduction of Maglev stations in areas

that do not currently have similar types of facilities has a greater potential to

create a significant impact. For example, the Maglev stations at airports or train

stations would be constructed in areas that already have transportation

terminals, so the addition of the Maglev components would be less likely to be

significant (assuming that the maglev station designs are compatible with the

urban design features or requirements of these areas).

Many of the design issues related to Maglev guideways, stations, and related facilities

will be specifically addressed in later development and will advance to a degree to allow

complete evaluations. The results of evaluations and accompanying consultation process

will be reported in a project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 58

Below is a summary of the consequences of the impact of the Maglev system on the

affected environment by alternative.

4.12.1 California

The California Maglev Alternative would share existing transportation infrastructure and

be visible against the backdrop of downtown Los Angeles. Although the entire length of

the corridor has not been evaluated and therefore overall visual impacts cannot be

defined, it is clear that the route would transverse local visual settings, open areas, parks,

and near some historic properties. Other than the parks, none of the areas traversed are

designated as a sensitive visual resource (such as a scenic highway). There are locations

along the route that will be marginally affected by the Maglev as a result of existing or

planned transportation systems. At least one historic site, Union Station, could have a

direct visual impact from Maglev construction.

Union Station is a Nation Register Historic Property. Development at this site will be

controlled by the provisions of the Alameda District Plan, a master plan for commercial

development at Union Station. It permits high-rise development on parcels surrounding

Union Station, preserving the station itself and view corridors to it. It is in this context

that the proposed Maglev stations will be sited and designed. Maintaining view corridors

to the historic station and relating to the modern high-rises surrounding the station will be

key to minimizing impacts. However, the Maglev system may not create a startling

difference in function or scale from existing and proposed transportation facilities at

Union Station.

At LAX and ONT, the modernistic elevated design of the guideway and stations would

not be dissimilar to current and proposed airport architecture. Although master plans and

designs are not yet finalized for the redevelopment of March Field, the same is likely to

be true. The mass and scale of the Maglev system is very much in keeping with airport

architecture for these three stations. This would be particularly true for the addition of

parking lots or parking garages.

The quality of views from properties such as parks and schools may be of local concern.

Individually sensitive views may exist in residential areas and to a lesser extent in

commercial and industrial areas. These impacts could be considered a significant adverse

impact.

4.12.2 Florida

Dramatic elevation differences between existing bridges and the new Maglev system may

have significant visual impacts. Three crossings – Banana River, North Indian River,

South Indian River Crossings were identified. A fourth, the SR3 Crossing at DR528 and

Canaveral Barge Canal was anticipated to have a significant impact.

In addition the visual impact caused by the introduction of an elevated structure into

relatively structure-free areas also exists. A significant change in the existing aesthetic

character is anticipated for Courtenay and the Canaveral groves.

Maglev could significantly alter the aesthetic character of the Merritt Island Wildlife

Refuge.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 59

Where Maglev is built along existing transportation routes, visual impacts may be

minimal. No scenic highway locations were identified. No locations were considered or

designated important views. However, as noted above, where Maglev is located near

residential, open space, wildlife refuges areas and river crossings, there is a potential for

significant adverse impacts.

4.12.3 Georgia

The Georgia Alternative is comprised of commercial, service, and residential

development with little vacant lands, other than parkland. For the most part, the Maglev

may be a novelty and may not necessarily have an adverse visual effect on areas where it

will co-locate on existing transportation infrastructure. There are significant adverse

visual impacts anticipated in some of residential, public housing, parkland, and historic

areas.

4.12.4 Louisiana

The historic viewshed of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed, eligible, and

potentially eligible buildings could be affected by the obvious intrusion of a modern

transportation facility into the historic landscape. To the extent that the Maglev remains

within existing transportation and utility infrastructure (railroad or power line corridors),

no historic or architecturally significant building will be directly, physically impacted.

An elevated Maglev train could have a significant adverse visual effect on the

surrounding neighborhoods through which it passes, and is likely to be incompatible in

size and design with the area’s buildings.

4.12.5 Maryland

Though the guideway will be seen from many vantage points, screening from pine forest

would be prevalent throughout much of the study area. The alternative is adjacent to the

Baltimore-Washington Parkway, a National Park, and Maryland Historic Property and

would serve historic Washington Union Station. Thus, Maglev implementation could

have a significant adverse impact to visual resources in the alternative.

4.12.6 Nevada

The Las Vegas landscape is characterized by striking modern commercial buildings that

are visually compatible with the proposed Maglev structures. Maglev may be highly

valued in this setting. However, the large scale of the elevated guideways and the

shadows they may cast will impact many existing facilities such as town-home clusters,

an apartment complex, single-residence homes, and a mobile-home park. Guideways

may block views of casinos and monument signs from highways and block views from

hotel rooms. The guideway would, to varying degrees, cross horizon views of open

desert and mountain ranges. No specific historic structures or districts within the visual

impact zone have been identified. There is a potential for a significant adverse impact to

visual resources in the alternative, especially in the desert areas south of Las Vegas.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 60

4.12.7 Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Alternative will pass through various commercial and residential sites.

Important vistas and scenic views that may be affected within this area and are accessible

to the public include the views of the Ohio River and the Pittsburgh Central Business

District, the West End Overlook, and sections of Mount Washington and Duquesne

Heights. Vistas and views seen from the Hill District and Troy Hill will be affected.

Views of a number of historic resources, including some NRHP listed sites, are likely to

be altered. There is a potential for significant adverse impacts to visual resources in the

alternative.

4.12.8 Mitigation

With each action alternative, a series of site-specific potential impacts, each with the

caveat that more specific design features (for the corridor, the Maglev equipment, and

supporting facilities) are required to determine consequences and therefore, mitigation.

Avoidance of significant impacts to important vistas, scenic views, and views of historic

resources is preferred. If, however, these impacts cannot be avoided, appropriate

mitigation measures will be recommended and implemented to reduce the negative

impacts. Opportunities to mitigate visual impacts of the guideway would be somewhat

limited due to the size and composition of structures required for the Maglev system. If

particularly sensitive areas arise during the planning process, mitigation options may

include:

§ Alignment shifts to avoid impact.

§ Vegetative screening, e.g., trees, hedgerows and other natural barriers.

§ Landscaping features such as grass-covered earthworks, berms, etc.

§ Decorative barriers such as fences and walls, and architectural enclosures.

§ Consideration of the impact caused by mitigation remedies such as noise

barriers, which in themselves agrevate visual impact. Use of natural or

transparent/translucent sound wall materials may be one solution.

§ Camouflaging or “obscuring” Maglev Alternatives through the use of earth

berms.

§ Burying of power lines.

§ Careful design and placement of the guideway columns, attention to color and

finish materials, as well as consideration of shadows and lighting.

§ Consideration of site orientation, massing and scale.

§ Computer-Aided Design (CAD) techniques used to superimpose the Maglev on

photos of the existing viewscape to help quantify the extent of impacts.

§ Restoring views by moving and/or reconstructing obstructed objects.

§ Emphasizing high-end archtitectural design.

§ Developing Maglev designs to take maximum advantage of the opportunity for

developing siting and design criteria to maximize compatibility with other sites

in the design stages.

Maglev designs will be developed to preserve architectural resources. For locations with

special status such as parks or historic properties, adverse impacts will be avoided to the

maximum extent possible to preclude conflict with protective regulations. Historic
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 61

properties for which a change in the visual environment would diminish the characterdefining features of the resource that made it eligible for NRHP listing, will be evaluated

in accordance with established procedures. Section 4(f) protection for parks and historic

properties will also require an evaluation to determine if the integrity of those resources

will be compromised. Plans for mitigating the visual effects of the Maglev will be

developed in consultation with Federal, State and local preservation agencies. Plan and

design reviews will be conducted as required.

4.12.9 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative consists of the non-deployment of the Maglev project. Under

the No-Action Alternative, there would be no visual and aesthetic impacts associated

with the physical presence of the Maglev infrastructure. However, travel by motor

vehicle and air is expected to be significantly higher under the No-Action Alternative

than that under any of the Maglev Alternatives. This could lead to the construction of

additional air and land transportation infrastructure to address, with the potential for

impacts to visual and aesthetic resources. The added transportation infrastructure

elements have the potential for creating visual impacts associated with structures such as

airports, stations/terminals, parking, and maintenance facilities, support structures such as

bridges, as well as from the ribbon-like lines of railroad and highway networks. These

visual and aesthetic impacts would need to be examined on a local and regional basis, and

could potentially be greater than those incurred under the Maglev Alternatives.

4.13 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Maglev design has not yet sufficiently advanced to assess where specific impacts could

occur and to begin the formal consultation process about impacts to historical,

architectural, archaeological and cultural resources. However, a general inventory of

these resources was made for each alternative and a level of potential impact analyzed. A

variety of prehistoric and historic sites or resources could potentially be impacted by

every action alternative, though most potential for significant impacts will be associated

with construction. Impacts during operational phases of the project are expected to be

negligible given that most maintenance activities would probably occur within previously

disturbed areas. Impacts to structures may also include those associated with noise

mitigation such as insulation. If the decision to proceed with the Maglev Program is

made, a site-specific inventory and impact analysis will be performed during the sitespecific EIS process. At that time further consultation with each State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and local

historic societies will be accomplished for the identification of all appropriate historic

properties, assessment of impacts, and development of mitigation measures. Below is a

summary of the potential impacts for each alternative at the current level of planning.

4.13.1 California

There would be some direct impact to Union Station, a National-Register-listed property.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad facilities at Redondo junction are
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 62

likely to have a potential impact. The grounds of the Philips Mansion have the potential

for impact depending on the final alignment. March Field Historic District and the

Cantinela Adobe could also be potentially impacted. A few archaeological resources

have been identified in the study area. There is the potential to disturb known sites as

well as to impinge on currently unknown sites if ground-disturbing activities (excavation)

occur in their vicinity. Several resources could be directly impacted, thus there is a

potential for a significant adverse impact to historical, archaeological and cultural

resources.

4.13.2 Florida

Potential for impact exists for two potentially NRHP-eligible and two non-NRHP-eligible

archaeological resources. However, preliminary design precludes direct impact to these

and other protected resources. Thus, there is a potential of an insignificant adverse

impact to historical, archaeological and cultural resources.

4.13.3 Georgia

There are many historic districts, which the Maglev could pass through, and it is likely

that the introduction of a modern magnetic-levitation rail could introduce elements that

are visually out of character with the districts and would compromise the integrity of the

districts’ settings. Of these, two districts, the Atlanta University Center and Castleberry

Hill are NRHP-listed. Twelve other individual NRHP-listed assets, as well as 22

potentially eligible pre-WWII neighborhoods, also exist in the study area. There are

significant areas of impact anticipated. It is likely that ground-disturbing activities will,

in some cases, result in the destruction of portions of an unknown number of

archaeological sites, which may be eligible for the NRHP. Most of downtown Atlanta

could be considered archaeologically sensitive, containing the remnants of structures and

other features dating back to 1840. Based on the potential of a direct impact, there could

be a significant adverse impact to historical, archaeological and cultural resources.

4.13.4 Louisiana

Though there are many historic structures along the route, many of them already have

existing train tracks or other transportation infrastructure in close proximity. If the

Maglev remains within previously disturbed railroad rights-of-way or power-line

corridors, none of the historically significant buildings will be directly physically

impacted. However, visual impacts to NRHP properties both fronting the corridor and at

a distance must be considered during alternative route final design phase. There are no

significant adverse impacts anticipated. There are numerous recorded archeological sites

in the study area. Several locations have a potential of encountering archaeological

resources at levels of subsurface disturbance likely during construction. However, no

known locations are sites eligible for the NRHP. Based on these indirect impacts, there is

a potential for a moderate adverse impact to historical, archaeological and historical

resources.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 63

4.13.5 Maryland

There are a number of historic resources that could be disturbed along the alternative,

although the impacts are anticipated to be minor. This alternative would terminate at

Washington Union Station, a National Register historic building, and may have other

potential impacts in National Capital Planning Area. Impacts to specific resources will

be detailed in the project specific EIS process. Further study, as outlined in Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is necessary. Several areas with

potential archaeological resources have been identified. Based on these indirect impacts,

there is a potential for a moderate adverse impact to historical, archaeological and

cultural resources.

4.13.6 Nevada

None of the 19 historic and architectural resources identified are listed on the NRHP.

However, potential impacts to other specific resources cannot be identified until a morespecific footprint of the alignment and supporting facilities is completed. A variety of

prehistoric and historic sites or resources could potentially be impacted by the proposed

project. Five NRHP listed buildings or groups of buildings are within 915 m (3,000 ft) of

the project. Impacts of the project on cultural issues related to Native Americans will

most likely be marginal since the guideway and associated facilities will be in existing

rights-of-way or previously disturbed or -degraded sites. Continued work with the SHPO

and affected Native American Tribes will ensure sensitivity. Although these resources

may be present, it is unknown if they will be directly impacted. Thus, there is a potential

for an insignificant adverse impact to historical, archaeological and cultural resources.

4.13.7 Pennsylvania

There are 21 historical resources that could experience a direct impact from Maglev

development. For resources listed or determined to be eligible for NRHP, mitigation

alternatives will be necessary to reduce negative impacts. There are 39 identified

archaeological resources that could be impacted. Based on the potential of a direct

impact, there could be a significant adverse impact to archaeological and historical

resources.

4.13.8 Mitigation

The best form of mitigation for any impacts will be avoidance. Maglev alignments can

be shifted to bypass affected resources. Where possible, guideway columns could be

located about 31 m (102 ft) apart, giving designers an opportunity to avoid impacts on

historic resources by relocating columns to move them away from or to span historic

resources.

If adverse impacts cannot be avoided, other mitigation strategies could be undertaken,

including:

§ Historic Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record

(HAER)-level recordation.

§ Relocation of the historic property with appropriate covenants and conditions.
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP



 $OWHUDWLRQ LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI ,QWHULRU¶V 6WDQGDUGV IRU WKH

7UHDWPHQWRI+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHVZLWK*XLGHOLQHVIRU3UHVHUYLQJ5HKDELOLWDWLQJ

5HVWRULQJ DQG 5HFRQVWUXFWLQJ +LVWRULF %XLOGLQJV RU WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH

,QWHULRU¶V6WDQGDUG IRU5HKDELOLWDWLRQDQG*XLGHOLQHV IRU5HKDELOLWDWLQJ+LVWRULF

%XLOGLQJV

 9HJHWDWLYH VFUHHQLQJ WUHHV KHGJHURZV JUDVVFRYHUHG HDUWKZRUNV RU RWKHU

ODQGVFDSLQJIHDWXUHV

 ,QWURGXFWLRQRIDUWLILFLDOEDUULHUVVXFKDVIHQFHVZDOOVQRLVHEDUULHUV

 ,QFRUSRUDWLRQ RI KLVWRULFVWUHHWVFDSH YLVXDOLPSDFWPLWLJDWLRQUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV

VWDWLRQV DQG JXLGHZD\V VLJQDJH OLJKWLQJ HWF RI KLVWRULFSUHVHUYDWLRQ

DJHQFLHVFRQVXOWHGGXULQJSODQQLQJ

 (YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH HQJLQHHULQJ LPSDFWV RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ QRLVH DQG

YLEUDWLRQVRQKLVWRULFSURSHUWLHV

 (YDOXDWLRQ RI SRWHQWLDO SDUNLQJ DQG WUDIILF FKDQJHV LQFOXGLQJ QRLVH DQG

YLEUDWLRQV ZLWK UHODWLRQ WR WKHLU HIIHFW RQ KLVWRULF VWUHHWVFDSHV DQG LQGLYLGXDO

SURSHUWLHV

$UFKDHRORJLFDO VLWHV LQFOXGLQJ FXOWXUDO1DWLYH $PHULFDQ UHVRXUFHV ZRXOG DOVR EH WKH

VXEMHFWRIPLWLJDWLRQSURJUDPVLQFOXGLQJ

 'HYHORSPHQW RI D UHVHDUFK GHVLJQ DQG OLPLWHG WHVWLQJ RI UHVRXUFH YHULILFDWLRQ

DQGYDOXDWLRQWRHQDEOH0DJOHYIDFLOLW\UHORFDWLRQWRDYRLGUHVRXUFHV

 0RUHGHWDLOHGWHVWLQJWRLGHQWLI\WKHVSHFLILFUHVRXUFHLGHQWLILFDWLRQDQG15+3

HOLJLELOLW\GHWHUPLQDWLRQZKHUHLWLVQRWSRVVLEOHWRDYRLGDORFDWLRQ

 'HYHORSPHQW RI WUHDWPHQW SODQV IRU UHVRXUFHV WKDW FRXOG QRW EH DYRLGHG

LQFOXGLQJSURYLVLRQVIRUH[FDYDWLRQFXUDWLRQDQGSURSHUGLVSRVLWLRQRIDUWLIDFWV

LQFOXGLQJFXOWXUDO1DWLYH$PHULFDQUHVRXUFHV

 'HYHORSPHQW RI DQ DFFLGHQWDOGLVFRYHU\ SODQ WR DGGUHVV XQDQWLFLSDWHG ILQGV

GXULQJSURMHFWFRQVWUXFWLRQ

 'DWDUHFRYHU\H[FDYDWLRQV

 ,QWHQVLYHDUFKDHRORJLFDOVXUYHLOODQFHVKRYHODXJHUWHVWLQJEDFNKRHH[FDYDWLRQV

RUPDULQH VXUYH\DORQJWKH VHOHFWHGDOWHUQDWLYHDQGDW VWDWLRQORFDWLRQVZHOOLQ

DGYDQFH RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ WR HQDEOH VXIILFLHQW WLPH IRU 15+3 WHVW H[FDYDWLRQV

DQGRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOGDWDUHFRYHU\DVQHFHVVDU\

 $UFKDHRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ PRQLWRULQJ WR LGHQWLI\ FROOHFW DQG FDWDORJXH

SRWHQWLDO LPSRUWDQW UHVRXUFHV LQ DUHDV ZKHUH VXEVXUIDFH WHVWLQJ LV LPSRVVLEOH

GXHWRH[LVWLQJSDYLQJRURWKHULPSHGLPHQWV

 $UFKDHRORJLFDO UHPDLQV XQH[SHFWHGO\ HQFRXQWHUHG GXULQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ VKRXOG

EHOHIWLQSODFHDQGHYDOXDWHGE\DQDUFKDHRORJLVWSULRUWRSURFHHGLQJ

 3URYLVLRQ IRU DQ DUFKDHRORJLVW 3RQ FDOO ́ DW DOO WLPHV E\ WKH FRQWUDFWRU RU

FRQVWUXFWLRQFRPSDQ\

 (YDOXDWLRQ RI DQ\ SRWHQWLDO LPSOLFDWLRQ RI DQG FRPSOLDQFH WR YDULRXV )HGHUDO

ODZVWKDWPDQGDWHWKH SURWHFWLRQ RIDUFKDHRORJLFDO VLWHVDQGFXOWXUDOLWHPVDQG

UHTXLUHDJHQFLHVWRLQFOXGH1DWLYH$PHULFDQVDQG)HGHUDOO\UHFRJQL]HGWULEHVLQ

GLVFXVVLRQVDQGLQWHUDFWLRQVRQPDMRU)HGHUDODFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJ

 7KH$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV3URWHFWLRQ$FW

 7KH1DWLRQDO+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ$FW

 7KH$PHULFDQ,QGLDQ5HOLJLRXV)UHHGRP$FW
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP



 7KH1DWLYH$PHULFDQ*UDYHV3URWHFWLRQDQG5HSDWULDWLRQ$FWWKLVLVRI

VSHFLDOFRQFHUQLQ1HYDGD

 ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU  )HGHUDO $FWLRQV WR $GGUHVV (QYLURQPHQWDO

-XVWLFHLQ0LQRULW\DQG/RZ,QFRPH3RSXODWLRQV

 ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU  &RQVXOWDWLRQ DQG &RRUGLQDWLRQ ZLWK 7ULEDO

*RYHUQPHQWV

 ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU  $FFHVVWR 6DFUHG 6LWHV RQ )HGHUDO /DQGVPD\

DOVRKDYHGLUHFWLRQDSSOLFDWLRQ

1R$FWLRQ$OWHUQDWLYH

8QGHUWKH 1R$FWLRQ $OWHUQDWLYHWKH0DJOHY 'HSOR\PHQW 3URJUDPZRXOG QRW SURFHHG

DQGD0DJOHYV\VWHPZRXOGQRWEHFRQVWUXFWHG7KHUHIRUHWKHUHZRXOGEHQRLPSDFWVRQ

KLVWRULFDUFKDHRORJLFDODQGFXOWXUDOUHVRXUFHVGLUHFWO\IURPD0DJOHYV\VWHP+RZHYHU

LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR FRQVLGHU SRWHQWLDO LPSDFWV IURP WKH 1R$FWLRQ $OWHUQDWLYH WKDW FRXOG

DULVH IURP SUHFOXGLQJ WKH 0DJOHY 'HSOR\PHQW 3URJUDP DQG WKH SRWHQWLDO EHQHILWV RI

FRQVWUXFWLQJD0DJOHYV\VWHP

,WLV DQWLFLSDWHGWKDW HFRQRPLF DQG SRSXODWLRQ JURZWKZLOO FRQWLQXH DURXQGWKH FRXQWU\

SURPRWLQJLQFUHDVHVLQLQWHUFLW\WUDYHO GHPDQG8QGHUWKH1R$FWLRQ$OWHUQDWLYHWUDYHO

E\PRWRUYHKLFOHLVH[SHFWHGWREHVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUWKDQWKDWXQGHUDQ\RIWKH0DJOHY

$OWHUQDWLYHV  7KH LQFUHDVH LQ PRWRU YHKLFOH DLU DQG OLJKW UDLO LQWHUFLW\ WUDYHO ZRXOG

UHVXOWLQ D YDULHW\ RIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ SUREOHPVWKDWPD\LQFOXGH DPRQJ RWKHUVLQFUHDVHG

FRQJHVWLRQ DQG WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH H[SDQVLRQ  7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO

LQIUDVWUXFWXUH WR DGGUHVV WKHVH SUREOHPV FRXOG KDYH FRQVLGHUDEOH LPSDFWV RQ KLVWRULF

DUFKDHRORJLFDO DQG FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFHV  7KHUH LV WKH SRWHQWLDO WR GLVWXUE NQRZQ VLWHV DV

ZHOO DV LQWUXGH RQ FXUUHQWO\ XQNQRZQ VLWHV LI JURXQGGLVWXUELQJ DFWLYLWLHV VXFK DV

H[FDYDWLRQRFFXULQWKHLUYLFLQLW\7KHVHLPSDFWVZRXOGQHHGWREHH[DPLQHGRQDORFDO

EDVLVDQGFRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\EHJUHDWHUWKDQWKRVHLQFXUUHGXQGHUWKH0DJOHY$OWHUQDWLYHV

 75$163257$7,21

0DJOHY 'HSOR\PHQW FRXOG KDYH DQ LPSDFW RQ ORFDO RU UHJLRQDO WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ  /RFDO

LPSDFWVFRXOGRFFXUIURPWKHDGGLWLRQDOWUDIILFWRDQGIURPWKH0DJOHYVWDWLRQVSDUNLQJ

ORWVDQGPDLQWHQDQFHIDFLOLWLHV1HZORFDOWUDIILFSDWWHUQVRQH[LVWLQJVWUHHWVZRXOGQHHG

WR DFFRPPRGDWH DGGLWLRQDO PRWRU YHKLFOHV  5HJLRQDO LPSDFWV FRXOG RFFXU IURP WKH

LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D IDVWHU DQG PRUH UHOLDEOH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ PRGH EHWZHHQ FLWLHV  7KH

IROORZLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQVHTXHQFHV VHFWLRQ LV GLYLGHG LQWR WKH ORFDO DQG UHJLRQDO

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQLPSDFWV

/RFDO7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ

0DJOHYVWDWLRQVSDUNLQJORWVDQGPDLQWHQDQFHIDFLOLWLHVFRXOGKDYHDSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWRQ

WKHORFDOWUDIILF DQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ7KH SODFHPHQW RIWKHVH IDFLOLWLHV FRXOGLQFUHDVHWKH

WUDIILFZLWKLQWKHVSHFLILFORFDWLRQ ,QWKHYLFLQLW\RIVWDWLRQV0DJOHYPD\FRQWULEXWHWR

LQWHUVHFWLRQFRQJHVWLRQDQGYHKLFOHGHOD\EHFDXVHRIWKHDGGLWLRQDOWUDIILFSURFHHGLQJWR

DQG IURP VWDWLRQ SDUNLQJ DQG GURSRII DQG SLFNXS DUHDV  /RFDO WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ FRXOG

H[SHULHQFHDVLJQLILFDQWDGYHUVHLPSDFW$WWKLVWLPHWKHORFDWLRQDQGGHVLJQRI0DJOHY
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 66

stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities have not been finalized. Thus, the site

specific and local traffic and transportation impacts cannot be fully identified and

addressed at this planning stage.

Station, parking lot, and maintenance facility designs should include operational and

geometric improvements that maintain, wherever reasonably possible, traffic conditions

at acceptable levels of service. In general, mitigation would include the realignment of

local traffic patterns and the creation of additional parking. Bus routes and other feeder

systems could be rerouted to serve the Maglev stations in addition to normal routes. It is

expected that the impact to other modes of transit would be insignificant. Measures

would be established to encourage and promote access to Maglev stations by high

occupancy vehicle modes as well as by pedestrian access and non-motorized vehicles.

These measures could include bicycle facilities, convenient pedestrian access, pedestrian

scale enhancements, cooperative agreements with public transit and private shuttle

services. System design and layout would accommodate inter-modal transfers by

providing means of direct access to other transit modes and by making inter-modal

connections convenient and safe.

Physical improvements can be made to intersections and roadways. For existing

intersections with traffic signals, additional turning lanes and through lanes could be

added where rights-of-way are available. Elevated pedestrian walkways could be

provided to eliminate the pedestrian traffic conflicting with the turning and crossing

vehicles. This would provide additional green time to vehicular traffic.

Peak hour traffic impacts at stations can be lessened by instituting variable pricing of

Maglev passenger fares to encourage riders to shift to “shoulder peak” hours or off-peak

times of the day. In addition, this type of fare program would allow for a better

optimization of the Maglev system and feeder services. Peak hour parking access

demand at stations may warrant improvements of thoroughfares providing access to

station parking as current excess street capacity is absorbed.

Additional methods to improve the capacity of analyzed intersections and arterials

without physical improvements are possible. These methods are typically called

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements. Transportation system

assessments typically find that the transportation system, while appearing to be saturated,

is operating at less than peak efficiency. Minor investments can either preserve the

system for future needs or enhance the operation to a more optimal level. This is

desirable since these actions can assist day-to-day travel and forestall the time when

major investments are more urgently required. Additionally, other strategic investments

for specific new facilities or programs can be made that relieve existing problems. These

types of actions can include provisions for such things as bike facilities or actions to

reduce travel through incentives for transit and carpooling. Congestion management and

incident management programs can also help reduce delay.

Regional Transportation

In general, implementation of the Maglev system would potentially benefit regional

traffic and transportation by relieving congestion on roadways within an alternative.

Congestion relief will improve a roadway’s level of service and safety. With the

potential of positive impact to regional traffic and transportation, no mitigation is
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 67

expected. Beneficial impacts are derived from ridership projections supplied, like all

project specific data, by participating states. The following is an assessment of the

impacts resulting from each of the seven action and No-Action Alternatives:

4.14.1 California

A preliminary range of patronage estimates has been developed to allow an initial

assessment of transportation impacts. A range of boardings and related effects was

derived from alternative market research and from available alternative trip tables.

High-speed service from LAX to March Field would provide travelers with a new travel

choice that would save substantial travel time over automobile travel during congested

peak travel periods of the day. Given that these trips are regional in nature, this would

result in a regional reduction in vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT)/vehicle-miles traveled

(VMT) and a lessening of air pollution. Based on an analysis of alternative market

research and travel markets, the reduction in daily VKT/VMT for autos would be

approximately 3.3 million km (2.05 million mi) per day. On an annual basis the range in

estimated VKT/VMT reduction for autos would be approximately 1.019 billion km

(633.5 million mi). Additional reductions in VKT/VMT could occur from Maglev

carrying commodities and lessening truck traffic. These reductions are estimated to be

16.1 to be approximately 33.796 million km (21 million mi) per year.

Given a substantial travel time advantage over competing modes of travel, a high-speed

Maglev line running from LAX to March Field is expected to generate significant

ridership by year 2020. The candidate alignment has been analyzed assuming eight

passenger stations spaced an average 18.5 km (11.5 mi) apart. The precise locations of

all stations are not known, so the information presented is somewhat general. Passenger

boarding and alighting activity would occur at stations throughout the day, but will be

most pronounced in the morning and evening commute periods (6–9 AM and 4–7 PM).

Based on the overall reduction in VKT/VMT and the travel time reduction, the California

Maglev Alternative could have a significant benefit to regional transportation.

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program could significantly benefit regional

traffic and transportation by relieving congestion and reducing overall trip times. On a

local level Maglev stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities could have an

insignificant negative impact to local traffic and transportation, requiring the adjustment

of traffic patterns and the creation of parking. The overall benefit of congestion relief to

the entire alternative significantly outweighs the local traffic impacts at potential station

locations. Therefore, there could be an overall potential significant benefit to the traffic

and transportation within the California Alternative.

4.14.2 Florida

The assumptions, with respect to the proposed M-2000 system’s ridership, indicate that

there would be approximately 4,000,000 annual person trips to NASA and 2,000,000 to

the Port. The model attributes for estimating ridership were changed to reflect these

values, and two new 2020 models were created to find traffic impacts based upon the

difference in daily traffic volume from a Cost Feasible Highway Only Model and a Cost

Feasible with Maglev model. The difference in the two models is that the

aforementioned vehicle trips for NASA and the Port would load at their respective
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 68

locations for the highway only model and for the Maglev model all of these trips would

load at the current airport site, assuming that all of the vehicle trips destined to the

Kennedy Space Center or to the Port would be directed to park at the Space Coast

Regional Airport site and would prefer to take the Maglev to either destination.

A few important factors should be mentioned, however:

§ There are no data on the number of airline passengers who would be using the

newly improved airport facility and would be transferring directly to the Maglev

System in lieu of arrival by automobile or bus. Obviously, as the percentage of

airline passengers who do not access the highway system increases, the overall

benefit to surrounding roadways would also increase.

§ There are no data on the number of cruise line passengers who arrive at the Port

by bus instead of by automobile. Many tourist packages use buses to transport

passengers from several locations to a single destination. Based upon overall

travel time “savings” it is doubtful whether or not these buses would stop to

transfer everyone at the airport rather than continuing the short distance to the

Port.

§ No estimation was made to account for any other trip purpose. This means, for

example, that no trips were included for employees that would “park at the

airport and ride the Maglev to work” nor were any other trip purposes included

for just riding the Maglev itself as a tourist attraction.

Currently, Brevard County does not have public transit bus service within the project

study area. The KSC Visitor Center has bus service from the Visitor Center to the launch

facilities. Ridership at the KSC Visitor Center is estimated at 4 million persons annually.

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program could have a moderate benefit to

regional traffic and transportation from the minimal change in vehicle miles traveled,

vehicle hours of travel and changes in volume. The participant estimated that Maglev

implementation would result in motor vehicle travel reductions of approximately 178,074

km (110,650 mi) per year. On a local level, Maglev stations, parking lots, and

maintenance facilities would have an insignificant negative impact on local traffic and

transportation requiring the adjustment of traffic patterns and the creation of parking.

The overall minimal benefit of congestion relief to the entire alternative and the

insignificant adverse impact to local traffic congestion at potential station locations could

result in an overall potential moderate benefit to the traffic and transportation within the

Florida Alternative.

4.14.3 Georgia

If the Maglev system were implemented within the Georgia Alternative, the primary area

for regional traffic impacts would be the I-75 facility and the area approximately 1.6 km

(1 mi) on either side of this alignment. Since Maglev will be a completely grade

separated facility paralleling I-75, it will not have a direct impact to the traffic flow,

except perhaps during the construction phase when certain temporary lane restrictions are

in place. However, the stations proposed for Maglev will have a direct impact on the

roadways within the station areas.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 69

Indirectly, the Maglev system is estimated to reduce the total daily VMT for the entire

Atlanta region by as much as 196,153 km (121,884 mi) per day by the year 2025. This is

not a significant percent change (approximately 0.08 percent), given the estimated VMT

daily in 2025 of 257,369,000 km (159,921,700 mi); however, it does provide an

alternative mode of transportation for I-75 route travelers.

The traffic impacts of providing a Maglev system along the I-75 corridor are expected to

be positive in terms of decreasing congestion levels in this alternative. Maglev

passengers can avoid heavy congestion on arterial streets and freeways, resulting in a

slight reduction in the number of accidents and a reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

This new mode of transportation would replace the automobile for some trip purposes.

Finally, the waste in operating expenses for automobile travel due to long delays on the

roadways could also be reduced.

The daily Maglev forecasted directional trips for this Program alignment configuration in

2025 is 19,984. The breakdown by purpose for total trips is as follows: work trips –

2,995; non-work trips – 1,034; and airport access trips – 8,888. The model used to yield

these numbers is an industry-standard four-step modeling process based on ARC’s

calibrated model structure. These numbers indicate that Maglev can potentially alleviate

the need for a significant number of parking spaces at Atlanta’s Airport and can

concurrently reduce the demand on the surface roadways leading to and from the Airport,

including I-75.

The average annual daily traffic volume on I-75 within the alternative would be reduced

by approximately two percent. One factor that is important in considering the beneficial

qualities of Maglev is its potential reduction of accidents on I-75. Although detailed

crash analysis was not conducted, research shows that approximately 50 fewer crashes

may occur with Maglev per year. Based upon 1998 National Safety Council estimations

of calculable costs (including the cost to society), assuming no fatalities, it is possible to

translate these 50 beneficial fewer crashes into a total economic savings of approximately

$2 million per year.

On a regional level, Maglev could result in a moderate daily savings in motor vehicle

travel, decreased congestion, reduced delays, and economic savings from less collision.

On a local level Maglev stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities could have an

insignificant negative impact to local traffic and transportation, requiring the adjustment

of traffic patterns and the creation of parking. The overall impact of the Georgia Maglev

Alternative from the modest benefit to regional transportation and the insignificant

adverse impact to local traffic could be a moderate benefit to transportation.

4.14.4 Louisiana

If the Maglev system is implemented within the Louisiana Alternative, the motor vehicle

travel in 2020 for the New Orleans area is projected to be approximately 47,157,000 km

(29,302,000 mi) per day. This is approximately 992,965 km (618,000 mi) per day less

than the No Action motor vehicle travel projections. The reduction in VMT in the region

would result in noticeable improvements in the peak hour level of service for freeways

and major arterials that parallel the Maglev Alternative. The Lake Pontchartrain

Causeway is projected to carry 49,450 vehicles per day under the Action Alternatives,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 70

approximately 70 percent of the No-Action projected volumes. I-10 should also

experience less congestion, however, projections are not available.

On a regional level, Maglev could cause noticeable improvements in peak hour traffic

and reduced delays. On a local level, Maglev stations, parking lots, and maintenance

facilities could have an insignificant negative impact on local traffic and transportation,

requiring the adjustment of traffic patterns and the creation of parking. Thus, the overall

impact to transportation from the Louisiana Alternative could be a potential significant

benefit.

4.14.5 Maryland

The Maglev system will serve a variety of travel markets within the Maryland

Alternative. These include commuters traveling regularly between the Baltimore and

Washington areas, business travelers with activities in downtown Baltimore and

Washington and the BWI Airport area, airline passengers traveling between BWI Airport

and the adjacent cities, tourists and visitors to Baltimore and Washington making trips

using Maglev to see attractions in each area. In addition, Maglev will be used for access

to major sports venues. In Baltimore, these include PSI Net Stadium and Orioles Park at

Camden Yards and in Washington include the new MCI Center.

People currently using the major north-south routes in the Baltimore-Washington corridor

(U.S. 29, I-95, U.S.-1 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway) may redirect their trips to

the Maglev and reduce congestion on these roads. Diversion of growth in travel demand

in the corridor to the Maglev system will mitigate the significant increase in congestion

projected for the corridor. Congestion on major highways in the Baltimore-Washington

corridor is projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years, generally averaging

about a 33 percent increase on corridor highways.

For the travel markets and travelsheds served by Maglev, projected motor vehicle travel

is 159.2 billion km (98.9 billion mi) annually for the No-Action Alternative in 2020.

Based on preliminary estimates of Maglev ridership, the system would result in annual

motor vehicle travel savings of 470 million km (292 million mi) (KCI, 2000).

Based on reduced congestion and the high annual VMT savings, the Maryland

Alternative could have a significant benefit to the region’s transportation. On a local

level Maglev stations, parking lots, and maintenance facilities could have an insignificant

negative impact to local traffic and transportation, requiring the adjustment of traffic

patterns and the creation of parking. Thus, the overall impact to transportation from the

Maryland Alternative could be a potential significant benefit.

4.14.6 Nevada

Maglev service would (1) induce a shift in travel modes, primarily from low-occupancy

motor vehicles to high capacity trains in the I-15 corridor, thereby reducing the level of

congestion relative to the No-Action Alternative; (2) improve linkages among, and

enhance the use of, existing and proposed transit modes in metropolitan Las Vegas; and

(3) expand mobility options for individuals living and/or traveling within the Las VegasPrimm corridor along I-15.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 71

The diverted trips between Primm and Las Vegas are estimated from the commuter trips,

assuming 4,000 current employees at Primm, of whom about 80 percent live in the Las

Vegas area. Based on current surveys and employer tabulations, the current mode split is

82 percent automobile, 15 percent bus, and 3 percent other. The Maglev service is

assumed to capture 90 percent of the bus share and 25 percent of the auto share. The

investment grade ridership forecast projected 2005 visitor trips between Las Vegas and

Primm to be about 24,000 one-way trips per day. The analysis predicted that Maglev

would capture about 42 percent of these trips, currently made by automobile.

Assumed growth in employees and visitors accounts for increased trip diversion in future

years. Maglev is projected to carry on the order of 40,000 passengers a day in 2020. On

an annual basis this represents 14.6 million trips. About 44 percent of these trips would

be diverted from other modes of travel. The other 56 percent of the projected Maglev

ridership would be induced trips, new trips on Maglev by persons taking excursion rides

they would not have taken without the availability of the Maglev. Such trips would

include new trips to Primm and local trips on Maglev in Las Vegas, in the downtown to

South Resort Corridor line segment.

Visitor and employee trips on Maglev would reduce annual vehicle miles of travel on I15. By 2020, Maglev is projected to divert auto and bus trips from I-15 between Las

Vegas and Primm, representing 417,719 VKT (259,559 VMT) per day as discussed in the

Energy section of this document. These estimates assume a moderate growth forecast—2

percent annually—for the existing visitor growth, slight increases in employment at

Primm between 1999 and 2002, and a modest beginning of an industrial park in the

Ivanpah Valley by 2010.

Diversion of traffic to Maglev would reduce congestion, and consequently improve

traffic operations, on I-15 relative to the No-Action Alternative. Maximum beneficial

impact is expected to occur southbound approaching the California border at Primm.

With proposed widening of I-15 south to Primm, a queue is expected to develop

southbound where the road narrows from three to two lanes. Maglev is expected to

reduce southbound Sunday PM I-15 traffic by approximately 5 percent, reducing traffic

delay by a proportionate amount (2003).

As in Primm, most Maglev travel would occur during the hours of high visitor activity

along the Las Vegas strip, which occur mainly outside of the traditional commute periods

but would overlap some with the PM peak on certain days, e.g., Fridays. Like all

hospitality workers, Primm workers are scheduled 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

and therefore create only a diffuse travel peak. Further, due to the high level of projected

excursion rides on Maglev, which both originate and terminate in Las Vegas, traffic to

and from stations is expected to be less than travel to and from Primm. More travel

would occur during less congested off-peak hours. Both of these factors would tend to

reduce the level of traffic impacts attributable to Maglev in the vicinity of stations.

The implementation of Maglev service is expected to result in net benefits to other transit

modes in the alternative. Employees now commute to Primm either by auto or on a

chartered bus service subsidized by their employer. The chartered bus makes many stops

in the urbanized area prior to making the trip to Primm, so employees without auto

transportation spend many hours each week commuting. Introduction of the Maglev
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 72

would make this chartered service far less attractive, so it is assumed that it would be

discontinued. Similarly, commuters riding the Citizens Area Transit (CAT) service

between downtown and the airport would find a great timesaving over the CAT service.

Although Maglev would replace most, if not all, intercity bus service between Primm and

Las Vegas and reduce bus ridership on CAT routes connecting downtown Las Vegas

with McCarran International Airport, Maglev service would enhance inter-modal

connections and generate an overall increase in area transit use.

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program could benefit regional traffic and

transportation by relieving congestion and reducing overall trip times. On a local level,

Maglev stations, parking lots and maintenance facilities could have an insignificant

negative impact on local traffic and transportation, requiring the adjustment of traffic

patterns and the creation of parking. It is expected that the overall benefit of congestion

relief to the entire corridor would outweigh the local traffic impacts at potential station

locations. Therefore, there could be an overall moderate benefit to the traffic and

transportation within the Nevada Alternative.

4.14.7 Pennsylvania

An investment grade ridership forecast was prepared for opening day (2006) and design

year (2026) conditions. The forecast used the existing urban travel mode maintained by

the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), the regional MPO, as a basis for

producing ridership forecasts. The modeling approach included the following features:

§ Development of land use forecasts reflecting the impact of the Pennsylvania

Project on a regional basis as well as local in the vicinity of Maglev stations.

§ Independent review of land use forecasts and methodology.

§ State preference surveys and analysis.

§ Origin/destination survey in the alternative.

§ Calculation of induced demand.

Segment fares $2.50, $5.00 and $7.50 were modeled, at headways of 10 minutes, 20

minutes and 30 minutes. Using the $5.00 segment fare at a 10-minute headway, the

regional transportation model maintained by SPC and the Maglev model were used to

project vehicle travel in the corridor for the year 2020 for the Maglev implementation

alternative. Projections of motor vehicle travel for 2020 yield approximately

115,792,290 km (71,950,000 mi) per day, compared to 110,536,170 km (68,684,000 mi)

with Maglev implementation, indicating a potential reduction of 5,256,120 km

(3,266,000 mi) traveled per day from Maglev implementation. On a yearly basis, Maglev

implementation would reduce motor vehicle travel by 1,576,836,000 km (979,800,000

mi).

The reduction in vehicle travel is approximately 4.5 percent, indicating a significant

positive benefit on mobility within the corridor. Implementation of the Maglev

deployment program could significantly benefit regional traffic and transportation by

relieving congestion and reducing overall trip times. On a local level, Maglev stations

and parking lots could have a significant impact to local traffic and transportation,

requiring adjustment of traffic patterns and creation of parking. The overall benefit of

congestion relief to the entire corridor significantly outweighs the local impacts at
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 73

potential station locations. Therefore, there would be an overall potential significant

benefit to traffic and transportation within the Pittsburgh area.

4.14.8 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country.

This expansion could result in increased intercity travel demand and ensuing congestion.

The increased operational congestion could also lead to safety deficiencies of

transportation systems. Roadways would continue to operate at a lower level of service

with increased travel times and potentially unsafe conditions. Airports would continue to

experience delays. Thus, the No-Action Alternative could have a significant adverse

impact on transportation and traffic. Under the No-Action Alternative, it is expected that

the demand for transportation infrastructure development actions, including airport,

railway, and highway expansion projects, would be elevated to meet the increasing

commuter travel demand. However, it is also uncertain what actions would be taken to

address some of the main problems associated with inter- and intra-regional

transportation in the United States.

4.15 ENERGY

Maglev trains are electromagnetically levitated and electrically propelled along a

guideway. Electric energy is also used for auxiliary services. The energy supply for

Maglev technology is normally drawn from the three-phase, public power grid (typically

110 kV).

The system power for the TRI Maglev trains is typically drawn through 30 MW

substations and then stepped-down to 20 kV for internal energy supply and propulsion

system use. The energy supply portion of the substation contains high and medium

voltage switching equipment, internal power supply equipment, power supply equipment

for the wayside components, safety shutdown systems, and control equipment.

The power supply and distribution system would provide power to the M2000 guideway,

through high voltage conductors, substations, transformers, AC to DC converters and

medium voltage conductors. The M2000 power distribution system can be described as

follows: high voltage AC power from the utility company will be stepped down to a

lower voltage and converted to DC voltage at substations spaced approximately 5 miles

apart along the route of the M2000. The DC power from the substations will connect to

5kV DC distribution lines mounted on the guideway that, through electronic switches,

feed blocks of Linear Synchronous Motors (LSM) positioned along the guideway.

Substations would consist of two areas: the transmission area that would house power

company’s equipment, and the distribution area that would house the transformers and

converters.

The low energy consumption of the Maglev system results from its lack of friction (noncontact technology), the high efficiency of its propulsion system, and the vehicle’s low

weight and low aerodynamic resistance (no fuel-storage, smooth exterior and underbody).

For these reasons, when traveling at the same speed, Maglev consumes approximately 30

percent less energy than a modern high-speed train. Or formulated another way, for the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 74

same energy input, Maglev produces approximately 1/3 more output/performance. When

compared with road and air travel, Maglev is even more energy efficient on a per

passenger basis. For equal distances, the specific energy consumption of automobile

travel is three times higher and for air travel, five times higher than that for the Maglev

system.

Analysis of the potential energy impacts of the proposed alternative focuses on the

potential impact to the electric power supply and distribution systems, identifying any

electric capacity issues relevant for the support of the proposed project alternatives. The

analysis also includes an assessment of the estimated net change in regional energy

consumption in 2020, when comparing the Maglev Alternative with the No-Action

Alternative. This comparison reflects the potential net impact on energy derived from

changes in automobile and commercial travel in the region promoted by the

implementation of the proposed alternative, and offset by energy requirements for

operation of the Maglev system. Changes in travel are quantified in the form of changes

in VMT induced by the Maglev Alternative, and are then converted to changes in energy

use by applying average fuel efficiencies/energy consumption rates per unit of VMT for

each of the affected modes. Potential sources of energy and any potential effects on

existing or other future users of electricity are also discussed in this section.

The analysis of the potential impact in energy consumption concludes with the potential

electrical energy to operate Maglev compared to the change in fossil fuel consumption

from commuters no longer using automobiles. An additional consideration is that

Maglev uses electric energy that could be generated from hydroelectric facilities, coal,

petroleum, natural gas, wind, and other means of generation, while motor vehicle travel

uses fossil fuels as its primary energy source.

4.15.1 California

When in full operation, the Maglev system would become one of the largest single

electric energy users in the region. Under deregulation of the electric power industry in

California, investor-owned utilities are becoming electrical transmission, distribution, and

energy services companies. In addition, the operator of the Maglev system could

purchase power from any of a number of power providers throughout the United States.

As such, the potential effect of the project on local or regional power supply is difficult to

determine. Given the now national supplier market, there should be greater opportunities

for securing power in the long term. Similarly indeterminate under the new electric

utility market are the potential indirect effects on the prices or availability of fuels or

other resources used to generate electricity.

Several electrical substations and power distribution lines may need to be constructed as

part of the system, to address the projected increase in electrical energy demand. The

private and municipal electric utilities in the region have maintained aggressive programs

of expanding their distribution systems to meet the needs of new users, so no constraints

on distribution of power to the Maglev system or other users are anticipated. Thus,

although the Maglev project would substantially increase electrical energy use in the

region compared to the No-Action Alternative, this increase is not projected to have a

significant effect on electric energy cost and availability to other users. No significant
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 75

adverse impact to the electric power and distribution systems of the corridor is

anticipated.

An average power consumption scenario was developed for the Maglev project, based

upon direct energy (energy used to operate the vehicles) and excluding generation and

transmission losses, to allow direct comparison with other transportation modes.

Standard route energy use data for a 5-section train were derived from TRI’s energy use

data, including the acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes. Assuming that Maglev

consumes 16.7 kWh per km (26.9 kWh per mi) of travel (CM, 2000), and calculating

total train miles traveled based on ridership, the participant estimated that the direct

propulsion energy consumption for the Maglev train propulsion system would be 834.7

billion BTU per year. In addition to the energy used for train propulsion, the Maglev

system would require the operation of several planned passenger stations along the

corridor. Since the locations have not yet been designed, an assumed factor of 10 percent

of train propulsion energy was used as representative of total station energy consumption.

The estimated total energy consumption for the Maglev system would be 918.2 billion

BTU per year.

It is anticipated that average weekday passenger boardings for the Maglev system in 2020

will range from 92,000 to 118,000 events (equivalent to 46,000 to 59,000 passengers per

day). The passengers using the system would otherwise travel in private automobiles for

the most part, with a small percentage using existing rail or bus transportation. For

analytical purposes in projecting future energy use, it is assumed that all diverted trips

would be from motor vehicles to the Maglev system. Implementation of the project

would reduce daily automobile travel by approximately 3,300,000 VKT (2.050,000

VMT) in 2020. In addition, the proposed Maglev system will carry freight, with a

corresponding reduction in daily truck travel ranging of 109,373 VKT (67,961 VMT).

Data projections of average fuel efficiencies were used to estimate the potential gasoline

use savings from Maglev implementation. Fuel efficiency for gasoline vehicles was

assumed to be 11.03 km/L (22.55 mpg) for the low base case scenario and 9.66 km/L

(19.75 mpg) for the high gasoline use case; for diesel vehicles, fuel efficiency was

assumed to be 2.16 km/L (5.07 mpg) (CM, 2000). The calculated potential gasoline and

diesel savings, in BTU equivalents, range from 4,223 to 4,741 billion BTU per year,

assuming energy content values of 130,000 BTU and 138,000 per gallon of gasoline and

diesel, respectively. The range accounts for the different scenarios of automobile travel

and fuel efficiency for the year 2020 considered in the analysis.

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (918.2 billion BTU) and fuel

reduction from less motor vehicle travel (between 4,223 and 4,741 billion BTU) were

used to calculate the potential net changes in energy consumption for the corridor. The

participant estimated that the implementation and operation of the Maglev system in the

corridor would result in a net reduction in regional energy consumption in the year 2020

ranging from 3,305 billion BTU to 3,823 billion BTU per year, which represents an

overall decrease in energy consumption of at most 0.2 percent

Implementation of the proposed alternative would result in overall minor net energy

savings for the region. Thus, a moderate beneficial impact to the energy system of the

region is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed alternative. No mitigation

for impacts on energy resources is required due to the absence of adverse impacts.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 76

4.15.2 Florida

The power consumption of the M-2000 MOS is estimated to be 847,348.5 BTU per 29

km (18 mi) run. Maglev ridership was estimated to be 4 million passengers per year,

based upon the travel mode choice assumptions stated in the Transportation section. In

order to meet the estimated ridership the Maglev 2000 system would require 110 runs per

day, which correspond to annual energy consumption of 34.03 billion BTU.

The implementation of the M-2000 system would reduce motor vehicle travel and

slightly increase average travel speeds in the corridor. The participant estimated that the

M-2000 would reduce VKT by 178,074 (VMT by 110,650) per year. Using the assumed

8 km/L (18 mpg) for fuel economy and a calculated energy content value of 53,226 BTU

per liter (201,481 BTU per gallon) of gasoline (FDOT, 2000), M-2000 implementation

would result in a reduction of 23,326 L (6,162 gal) of gasoline per year, which

correspond to a reduction of 1.242 billion BTU per year.

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (34.03 billion BTU) and fuel

reduction from less motor vehicle travel (1.242 billion BTU) were used to calculate the

potential net changes in energy consumption for the corridor. The participant estimated

that the implementation and operation of the Maglev system in the corridor would result

in a net increase in regional energy consumption in the year 2020 of 32.79 billion BTU,

which corresponds to an increase of approximately 14.5 percent in transportation energy

consumption. Thus, a moderate negative impact to the energy system of the region is

anticipated from the implementation of the proposed alternative. No mitigation for

impacts on energy resources is required due to the absence of significant adverse impacts.

4.15.3 Georgia

Georgia Power currently has a generation capacity of 126,468,120 MW h/yr (14,437 MW

x 8760 hr/yr), which corresponds to approximately 4.31x1014 BTU/yr. In addition,

Georgia Power is seeking to re-license three hydroelectric plants that will increase grid

capacity. The passenger stations are proposed to be located in populated areas where the

existing distribution infrastructure should be sufficient to handle the minimal increase in

demand to accommodate Maglev.

The energy requirements for the Maglev system (train, passenger station, and central

maintenance facility operations) were calculated based on TRI’s train performance

calculations, which account for speed, guideway alignment, number of stops, and number

of cars/trains. Maglev energy consumption in 2025 was estimated to be 311.5 billion

BTU, which accounts for approximately 0.07 percent of the current total generation

capacity in the region, and would therefore represent an insignificant increase to total

electrical generation. Given the current generation and distribution capacity in the

corridor, it is expected that there will be adequate supply lines and distribution to handle

the minimal energy consumption increase produced by the implementation of the

proposed Maglev Alternative. Thus, no significant impact to the power and distribution

systems of the corridor is anticipated.

The direct annual changes in energy consumption for the forecast years have been

estimated for the area. It is assumed that the deployment of the Maglev system would not

change airline operations or air travel demand between Atlanta and Chattanooga. The
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 77

model used to predict energy usage was based on Trans Rapid International’s train

performance calculations. The model accounts for the speed profile, vertical and

horizontal alignment of the Maglev guideway, and number of stops, and cars/train

(three).

The changes relating to the action alternative are a very small portion of the total regional

transportation operation. The participant estimated that there would be a decrease in

vehicle travel of approximately 61,200,000 km (38,027,920 mi) per year by 2025. Using

assumed values for fuel efficiency (26.9 mpg) and BTU content (125,000 BTU per gallon

of gasoline), the reductions in motor vehicle travel result in energy savings of

approximately 176.7 billion BTU for 2025.

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (311.5 billion BTU) and fuel

reduction from less motor vehicle travel (176.7 billion BTU) were used to calculate the

potential net changes in energy consumption for the area. The participant estimated that

the implementation and operation of the Maglev system in the area would result in a net

minor increase in energy consumption for the chosen forecast year of approximately

134.8 billion BTU per year. Because of the small scope of the Maglev system in the

regional context, and because the energy use of new fixed facilities for Maglev is

counted, a slight increase in total regional energy requirements for transportation is

forecast. The increase represents about 0.05 percent of the total regional transportation

energy consumption in 2025, which will be on the order of 285 trillion BTU. The

forecasted increase in energy consumption for the alternative is considered to be an

insignificant adverse impact. Thus, no mitigation for impacts on energy resources is

anticipated.

4.15.4 Louisiana

Net change in energy consumption for the Louisiana Alternative is evaluated by

comparing the potential reduction in automobile travel in the region due to the

implementation of the proposed alternative, with the additional electrical power

requirements of the Maglev system operation. The Maglev system is estimated to

consume approximately 820,000 kilowatt-hours on an average day, including Maglev

operation, maintenance, and station requirements. This figure converts to approximately

2.8 billion BTU of power consumed by the Maglev system on a daily basis, which

corresponds to approximately 1,021 billion BTU per year. As electrical substations

would be located on both the North and South shores of Lake Pontchartrain, both Entergy

and Cleco would be supplying electricity for Maglev operation. Through

communications between Louisiana Maglev participants and the electric utility

companies operating in the corridor, it has been determined that there would be sufficient

generation capabilities to supply the projected energy consumption of the projected.

Hence, it is concluded that the project will have an insignificant impact on the electric

distribution and supply systems in the alternative.

The Louisiana Maglev Alternative could reduce peak period commuter traffic in the

corridor. It could also promote the reduction of commuter congestion on or along the

roadways serving the general area between the New Orleans International Airport and the

downtown business district of the city of New Orleans. Benefits would be realized from

increased vehicle mobility on the local highway system, which would result in less direct
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 78

and indirect vehicle operational energy consumption. The participant estimated that the

implementation of the Maglev system would reduce motor vehicle travel in the corridor

to approximately 47,156,997 km (29,302,000 mi) per day. Thus, the difference in VMT

between the No-Action and Action Alternatives is 992,965 km (617,000 mi) per day.

This would result in approximately 140,060 L (37,000 gal) of fuel saved each day in the

study area with the Maglev system, when using the same assumptions for vehicle mix,

BTU content value (126,760 BTU/gallon), and average mileage ratings (7.09 km/L

[16.68 mpg]) for 2020 as in chapter 3. This would convert to 4.7 billion BTU saved each

day by implementing the Maglev system, which correspond to approximately 1,712

billion BTU per year.

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (1,021 billion BTU) and fuel

reduction from less motor vehicle travel (1,712 billion BTU) were used to calculate the

potential net changes in energy consumption for the corridor. It is estimated that the

implementation and operation of the Maglev Alternative in the area would result in net

savings in energy consumption for the year 2020 of approximately 691 billion BTU per

year, which represents a net reduction of less than 1 percent compared to the No-Action

transportation energy consumption for the region.

The implementation of the proposed alternative would result in overall net energy savings

for the region. Thus, a moderate positive impact to the energy system of the region is

anticipated from the implementation of the proposed alternative. No mitigation for

impacts on energy resources is required due to the absence of adverse impacts.

4.15.5 Maryland

The base-case operating plan for Maglev operating plan presumes the use of a 3-car train

operating 320 round trips per week on a 64 km (40-mi) route. It was estimated that

Maglev consumes 6,425,063 BTU per trip. The number of trips needed to meet projected

ridership was estimated at 320 roundtrips per week. Adding a 10 percent factor for

energy related to support operations, it was estimated that the Maglev system operation

would consume 235.2 billion BTU per year (KCI, 2000).

The projected motor vehicle travel reduction resulting from travel on Maglev is

1,287,475 km (800,000 mi) daily in 2020, corresponding to 29,000 diverted daily motor

vehicle trips. Consequently, the annual reduction in motor vehicle travel would be of 470

million VKT (292 million VMT). Assuming a fuel efficiency factor of 20.6 mpg and

gasoline energy content of 125,000 BTU/gallon, the calculated reduction in motor vehicle

travel is equivalent to a daily savings of 4.85 billion BTU, which corresponds to annual

reductions in energy consumption of 1,771.8 billion BTU (KCI, 2000).

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (235.2 billion BTU) and energy

reduction from less fuel for motor vehicle travel (1,771.8 billion BTU) were used to

calculate the potential net changes in energy consumption for the area. It is estimated

that the implementation and operation of the Maglev Alternative in the corridor would

result in net savings in energy consumption for the year 2020 of approximately 1,536.6

billion BTU per year, which represents a net reduction of about 1.85 percent compared to

the No-Action Alternative transportation energy consumption for the region (KCI, 2000).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 79

The implementation of the proposed alternative would result in overall net energy savings

for the region. Thus, a moderate positive impact to the energy system of the region is

anticipated from the implementation of the proposed alternative. No mitigation for

impacts on energy resources is required due to the absence of adverse impacts.

4.15.6 Nevada

Under deregulation, the operator of the Maglev system could purchase power from any of

a number of power providers throughout the United States. As such, the potential effect

of the project on local or regional power supply is difficult to determine. Given the now

national supplier market, there should be greater opportunities for securing power in the

long term. Similarly indeterminate under the new electric utility market are the potential

indirect effects on the prices or availability of fuels or other resources used to generate

electricity. The Nevada Power Company (NPC) has maintained an aggressive program

of expanding its distribution network in order to meet the power consumption

requirements of new users. Representatives from the Nevada Maglev Alternative have

discussed the Maglev power requirements with the NPC, and no constraints on power

distribution to the system are anticipated. Implementation of the Maglev Alternative

would substantially increase electrical energy use in the region compared to the NoAction Alternative. This increase is not projected to have a significant effect on electric

energy cost and availability to other users. Thus, it is expected that there would be no

significant adverse impacts to the electrical power and distribution systems of the area.

Direct Maglev energy was calculated as the energy used for propulsion, including

auxiliaries, and is based upon energy and power studies from which energy consumption

was estimated at 2,096 BTU per mile. Energy consumption for operations of the

proposed Maglev system was estimated to be on the order of 5.041 billion BTU of

electrical energy per day. On an annual basis, assuming operation on the same basic

service plan throughout a 365-day year, Maglev would consume energy on the order of

1,840 billion BTU per year in 2020. Power requirements vary depending upon the

number of trains in service, their total time in service, their operating speed, and a

number of other factors.

Implementation of the proposed Maglev Alternative could induce a diversion of personal

motor vehicle and bus trips to train travel, thereby potentially reducing traffic along the

main roadways in the corridor. This potential reduction in motor vehicle travel demand

could generate energy savings in the form of less gasoline and diesel fuel consumption as

a result of the shortened or totally avoided trips. The estimate of diverted inter-city trips

in the corridor is based upon the current level of trips of this type, which are assumed to

grow at 3 percent a year to 2020. The expected reduction in motor vehicle travel would

result in a decrease of 417,719 km (259,559 mi) daily with Maglev service operational in

the corridor compared to the No-Action Alternative. In addition, there would be a

reduction of 4,138 km (2,571 mi) of heavy-duty travel per day. Assuming fuel economy

factors of 12.75 km/l (30 mpg) for gasoline and 1.7 km/l (4 mpg) for diesel vehicles

(PTG, 2000c), respectively, and energy content values of 138,600 BTU/gallon-gasoline

and 155,100 BTU/gallon-diesel, Maglev implementation results in annual savings of

453.1 billion BTU per year of primarily fossil fuel-based energy use (417.6 billion BTU

from gasoline vehicle travel and 35.5 from diesel vehicle travel reductions).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 80

The annual estimates of Maglev energy consumption (1,840 billion BTU) and fuel

reduction from diverted motor vehicle travel (453.1 billion BTU) were used to calculate

the potential net changes in energy consumption for the corridor. It is estimated that the

implementation and operation of the Maglev system in the corridor would result in a net

increase in regional energy consumption in the year 2020 of approximately 1,387 billion

BTU per year. The energy savings from the reduction in motor vehicle trips in the

corridor is more than offset by the increase in energy use by Maglev trains. It should be

noted that a substantial portion of the increase in energy use results from a high level of

Maglev service required to accommodate induced train travel. The increase in energy

consumption represents about 1.5 percent of the total projected No-Action regional

transportation energy demand in 2020. This forecasted minor increase in energy

consumption for the corridor is considered to be an insignificant adverse impact to the

energy supply and distribution systems of the area. Thus, no mitigation for impacts on

energy resources is anticipated.

4.15.7 Pennsylvania

With the deregulation of the electric utility industry, the generation market has become

more competitive. Service to the electrical substations that would be constructed to

provide electricity for Maglev operation would be provided via the 138 kV transmission

systems of Duquesne Light and Allegheny Power. The generating facilities within these

two electric utilities are more than adequate to supply the projected total Maglev energy

consumption of approximately 376 billion BTU per year for 2020. Increased energy

consumption in the order of magnitude estimated for the Maglev system would not be a

burden for the electric utility system, since current transmission and distribution systems

should be adequate to reliably supply the needed energy for Maglev operation in the

alternative.

Maglev would represent a little over one percent of total energy consumption in 2020.

There already exist several industrial and commercial customers in the corridor whose

energy consumption exceeds the Maglev projection. The potential impact of the Maglev

project to the electric power supply and distribution system of the interconnected regional

electrical network is minimal. Based on traditional assessment procedures, the electric

transmission, distribution, and generation capacity resources planned and presently in

service in the corridor region, it is concluded that they will satisfy the ECAR criterion for

adequate reliability to serve currently projected demand and obligations. Thus, no

significant adverse impacts to the electrical power generation and distribution systems of

the corridor are anticipated.

Investment grade ridership estimates were produced and used to project vehicle travel in

the corridor for the year 2020 for the Maglev implementation alternative. Projections of

motor vehicle travel for 2020 yield approximately 115,792,290 km (71,950,000 mi) per

day, compared to 110,536,170 km (68,684,000 mi) with Maglev implementation,

indicating a potential reduction of 5,256,120 km (3,266,000 mi) traveled per day from

Maglev implementation. The potential energy savings from reduced vehicle travel, in

BTU equivalents, were calculated using the same assumptions of fuel efficiency and

BTU content as in Chapter 3. The resulting reduction in energy consumption from

reduced vehicle travel is approximately 6,381 billion BTU per year.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 81

The annual estimates of BTU consumption (376 billion BTU) and fuel reduction (6,861

billion BTU)) were used to calculate the potential net changes in energy consumption for

the corridor. It is estimated that the implementation and operation of the Maglev system

in the corridor would result in a net decrease of 6,485 billion BTU for the year 2020.

This decrease represents about 5 percent of the total regional transportation energy

consumption in 2020, indicating a significant positive impact.

4.15.8 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

transportation directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider

potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the

Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

spurring increased intercity travel demand and ensuing congestion. The increased

operational congestion could also lead to safety deficiencies of transportation systems.

Roadways would continue to operate at a lower level of service with increased travel

times and potentially unsafe conditions. Airports would continue to experience delays.

Thus, the No-Action Alternative could have a significant adverse impact on

transportation and traffic. Under the No-Action Alternative, it is expected that the

demand for transportation infrastructure development actions, including airport, railway,

and highway expansion projects, would be elevated to meet the increasing commuter

travel demand. However, it is also uncertain what actions would be taken to address

some of the main problems associated with inter- and intra-regional transportation in the

United States. It will be necessary to examine the impacts on a local, regional and

national basis.

4.16 PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH

By law, the FRA has responsibility for ensuring railroad safety throughout the Nation.

To monitor railroad compliance with federally mandated safety standards, FRA employs

400 inspectors operating out of 47 offices throughout the country. FRA's traditional sitespecific safety inspection program has produced substantial gains in railroad safety with

real benefits for the American people. Public safety, health and environmental factors are

some of the most important considerations with regard to the implementation of the

Maglev Deployment Program. Public safety and health issues will be considered for both

potential Maglev technologies in the following analysis. Before any of the alternatives

are implemented, the FRA will analyze at the time of final design the safety and health

performance of the proposed action during the site-specific EIS process.

Electromagnetic fields and radiation emissions from the Maglev technologies could pose

a potential public safety and health risk. EMF/EMR safety standards and guidelines have

been established to protect the public. As long as these standards are met, Maglev

operation should be safe, and accepted by the public. This section analyzes the potential

for EM emissions from Maglev and considers them with regard to established EMF/EMR

safety guidelines and standards.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 82

4.16.1 Systems Safety Features

TR08 Maglev

All proposed alternatives, except Florida, would use the Transrapid Maglev system.

Although the most current Transrapid Maglev System would be deployed, information is

only available from an earlier version, the TR07. The latest version, the TR08, is

reported by TRI to be designed to at least achieve and possibly exceed the performance

of the TR07. If the TRI technology is chosen for the Maglev Deployment Program,

detailed technical information will be developed on the current state of TRI Maglev

System performance and safety features. These features would be fully assessed in a sitespecific EIS. The following preliminary information is based on data obtained a decade

ago on the TR07.

Passenger-carrying vehicles of the TRI type have been tested since 1976, and field data

are available from the TRI’s 31.5 km (19.6 mi) test track in Emsland, Germany. That test

facility has been in operation since 1987 and currently operates up to eight rides per day,

6 days per week. Since construction, the facility achieved a total of 650,000 km (403,891

mi) and has carried approximately 200,000 passengers. According to TRI, there have

been no major mishaps during construction or operation.

The safety concepts of the TRI’s Maglev includes:

§ Automatic train control and system protection without the need for operator

intervention for safety-critical functions.

§ Automatic monitoring and reporting of all system equipment, functions, and

status including automatic dimensional inspection of the guideway.

§ Protection of passengers during ingress and egress of trains in stations by a

platform gate system (if desired by operator).

§ Passive protective measures (barriers, etc.) against the intrusion of obstacles

into the vehicle’s path.

§ Fire protection measures and rescue strategy.

§ Designed-in crashworthiness to minimize hazards associated with collision with

unexpected obstacles.

§ At crossing points where TRI alignments intersect with road and rail links,

TRI’s Maglev will be grade separated to ensure there is no opportunity for

physical contact between other transportation facilities.

Guideway Safety Considerations. Safety is a principal feature of TRI design. Safety

starts with the basic wrap-around-the-guideway design of the physical vehicle and

extends through to the fully automatic operation-control system.

Unlike conventional railways, there are no plans for exposed high-voltage components

such as overhead supply cables. All electrical components are fully insulated and/or

enclosed or buried to prevent unauthorized contact. System safety is also enhanced since

only relatively short sections of the guideway (motor sections) are powered at any one

time (as the train physically passes). Other sections are inherently safe with no power

applied.

As a mitigation measure, a U-shaped protective shield that would go under and to the

sides of the guideway and lower part of the Maglev vehicle could be used. This shield
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 83

could lower the sound levels to below and to the side of the guideway, and keep dust and

debris from being swept directly off the side of the guideway. The shield could also

protect the under-running parts of the Maglev vehicle and the public from these underrunning parts. In addition, in cold climate areas, heating elements could be installed on

the shield and on the guideway to prevent ice buildup during snow storms.

Collisions between trains on the same guideway are unlikely due to the nature of the

propulsion system in the guideway. The motor would force each of the trains located

within the same propulsion segment to travel at the same speed and direction. Collisions

with other transportation systems are excluded by avoiding the use of at-grade

intersections and the wrap-around construction of the train to the guideway makes

derailment unlikely.

In comparison to other transportation systems, the loads experienced by the trains and

guideway in the Maglev system are extremely low, thereby reducing the overall operating

risk. This is accomplished by continuous transfer of the vehicle loads along the entire

length of both sides of the train via levitation and guidance magnets. As in all

transportation modes, accidents can happen. There is the remote chance that trucks,

buses, and cars could accidentally hit a guideway support column. Using the latest

technology, any changes in the guideway can be accurately identified and located by

automatic monitoring of the geometry of the guideway.

As a mitigation measure, a U-shaped protective shield that would go under and to the

sides of the guideway and lower part of the Maglev vehicle could be used. This shield

could lower the sound levels below and to the side of the guideway, and keep dust and

debris from being swept directly off the side of the guideway. The shield could also

protect the under-running parts of the Maglev vehicle and the public from these underrunning parts. In addition, in cold climate areas, heating elements could be installed on

the shield and on the guideway to prevent ice buildup during snow storms.

Communication and Control. The design of the longstator propulsion system and the

operation control system technically prevents two trains from being in the same motor

section at the same time. Even if this did theoretically occur, since the motor is in the

guideway, it would force both trains to travel at the same speed in the same direction,

thereby again preventing a collision.

The safety features of the automatic train control and system protection systems are

designed to minimize human error from causing an event, which could lead to a safetyrelevant situation. The operation-control system, which does have this responsibility, is

designed and built with full technical and operational redundancy with automatic

shutdown routines to prevent any situation escalating to a level where human safety could

be at risk.

The primary communication between the vehicle and the operation-control center is via

the radio-transmitted operation-control system. The same will be true for the stations.

To augment this, normal mobile telephones may be used (public networks) both during

the trip time and in case of emergency.

Vehicle Component Safety. If the facility loses power during operation, the vehicle

relies on its on-board batteries to maintain levitation until the vehicle is brought to a stop
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 84

using the back-up (eddy current) brakes. Power interruptions have been simulated

numerous times over the years without serious safety implications. The newest TRI

vehicle, the TR08, has a design speed of 550 km/h (342 mph). The maximum operating

speed of the proposed alternative is approximately 500 km/h (310 mph).

The Maglev feature for emergency and rescue operation provides a redundant electricalpower system (batteries) within the vehicle to provide enough power to levitate the

vehicles in a “hover” mode for reduced operating conditions. This feature would allow

the Maglev to reach the next stopping area for safe egress. In cases where emergency

evacuation is necessary, this would be accomplished by means of evacuation tubes,

located at each door, in areas with firm, level ground. Walkways with stairs are provided

along the guideway at auxiliary stopping areas where adverse ground conditions such as

water or swamps occur. Specific details addressing the evacuation of elderly or disabled

passengers will be addressed during final site design.

The nose area of the train is reinforced, shaped to deflect most guideway obstructions,

and has a crush zone to absorb larger collisions. These design considerations minimize

the effect to passengers.

During operation at the TRI Test Facility in Northwest Germany, vehicles have traveled

in gusty weather with wind speeds up to 60 m/s (197 ft/sec) without any contact between

the magnetic levitation components and the guideway. Even if contact should occur

(regardless of the reason), there are no safety issues involved.

The Maglev vehicles also incorporate state-of-the art protection from direct and indirect

lightning strikes. The vehicle is designed to allow a predefined crossover of the

lightning-current between guidance magnets in the vehicle and the guidance rails on the

guideway beams. The beams are grounded to the guideway substructures, which are in

turn grounded to the soil. The vehicle body is designed and qualified as a Faraday Cage.

All vital vehicle functions are qualified for EMF-compatibility due to lightning.

Fire Safety. Maglev vehicles expose the public to similar fire hazards as conventional

electric propulsion rail cars. Recently finalized Federal rules for rail passenger

equipment cover a wide range of hazards and specify acceptable materials for interior

compartments. All of these specifications and standards are intended to reduce the

likelihood of a fire and to reduce the severity of a fire mainly by reducing the smoke

quantity and toxicity and heat content of any fire that should occur. The TRI design will

be required to satisfy the requirements pertaining to fire safety in the Federal passenger

equipment rule.

Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation. In most circumstances Maglev vehicles

will operate as intended, and passengers will board and disembark through the normal

doors at stations. The extensive use of elevated Guideway makes evacuation procedures

a special concern. The TRI design depends on evacuation tubes at each door to provide

emergency egress. In locations where the tubes are not practical (i.e., over water, swamp,

steep rugged terrain), special structures and stairways are provided leading to safe areas.

Onboard operating personnel would be responsible for assisting elderly or disabled

passengers. Applicable passenger equipment standards require rail systems to complete

an emergency plan and specify number of emergency exits with special lighting and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 85

signage. During the site-specific design stage, local fire fighter and rescue workers could

be consulted to prepare emergency plans.

All Maglev passenger stations and support and maintenance areas will be serviced by

State and local police, and local ambulance, fire, and hospital emergency services.

Existing emergency procedures and routes associated with currently operating

transportation, transit, and commuter facilities (buses, trains, and airplanes) are applicable

to support the Maglev operation. The medical equipment to be carried on the Maglev

vehicles will be specified through the route operator and U.S. regulations. Related

emergency plans, specialized evacuation procedures, and emergency preparedness

training should be addressed during final site design.

MAGLEV 2000

The Florida Alternative proposes to use the M-2000 technology. Although the M-2000

has not been constructed or tested, it is designed and engineered to maximize safety and

reliability through the use of design approaches that minimize risk, multiple-redundant

components that eliminate the chances of single point and common mode failures, backup systems, and continuous, real-time monitoring of the operating health of the M-2000

guideway and vehicles.

The safety concepts of Maglev 2000:

§ Real-time, continuous monitoring of all guideway section.

§ Video, sensors and laser to detect hazardous objects.

§ On-board sensors to monitor the proper functioning of guideway loops.

§ Speed and position of all vehicles on the guideway are continuously monitored

and controlled by a central facility.

§ Crashworthiness design to deflect impacting objects either airborne objects or

on the guideway.

§ Continuous two-way voice communications between the vehicle operators and

the central facility.

§ Levitation and guidance system designed to withstand extremely strong external

forces, such as, very strong crosswind gusts.

Guideway Safety Considerations. The M-2000 guideways, both narrow-beam and

planar, are elevated well above grade so that access to the guideway is restricted. In

addition, there is a large physical clearance (i.e., 15 cm (6 in)) between the levitated

vehicle and the guideway. These characteristics minimize the possibility of deliberate or

accidental damage to the guideway, and the emplacement of hazardous objects.

All portions of the guideway are continuously monitored in real-time by the central

traffic-control facility, using both zoom video cameras mounted on poles and sensors to

detect when hazardous objects are present. The vehicle can also determine whether the

guideway beam position and orientation is correct, or whether it has shifted, and to what

degree.

In addition, each time a vehicle travels the entire length of the guideway, its sensors will

detect whether the local guideway loops are functioning correctly or not. That is, the

vehicle can detect whether the levitation and guidance loops are open circuited or short
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 86

circuited (completely or partially), whether they have moved from their proper position,

and whether the AC in the LSM winding has the proper time-dependent shape and

magnitude.

Communication and Control. All of the diagnostic and locational information will be

transmitted in real time to the central traffic-control facility, which can then specify what

corrective-maintenance actions should be carried out to ensure continuous safe operation.

The vehicle will continuously monitor the operating health of all of the vehicle

subsystems, and the information will be transmitted in real-time to the central trafficcontrol facility. If off-normal conditions were to develop in the superconducting magnets

(i.e., temperature, helium flow rate, etc.) cryostats, or cryocoolers, the vehicle could be

diverted to the nearest station for corrective maintenance. Similarly, if there were any

problems with computer, communication, and control systems on-board the vehicle, this

information would be transmitted in real time to the central facility, which would then

divert the vehicle for corrective maintenance.

The speed and position of all vehicles on the guideway will be continuously monitored

and controlled by the central facility, to ensure that safe separation distances (i.e.,

headways between vehicles) are always maintained. Because the speed of a vehicle is

controlled by the frequency of the AC fed to the guideway and is independent of external

forces on the vehicle, it is simple for the control facility to maintain safe headways at all

times.

In the M-2000 LSM propulsion system, the whole guideway is not continuously

energized, but only “blocks” where M-2000 is present are powered-up. Movement of the

M-2000 vehicles on the Maglev system would be controlled by a central traffic facility,

and not by operators on the individual vehicles. The central facility will have a real-time

display of the speed, location, and operational conditions of all vehicles traveling on the

system, together with real-time monitoring of the operating conditions at all points on the

guideway.

Sensors on the guideway – e.g., magnetic, electronic, ultrasonic, and/or laser – will

determine the instantaneous location and speed of all vehicles, and transmit the data back

to the central facility. Zoom video cameras mounted on poles will continuously relay

images of all portions of the guideway to the central control facility, so that hazardous

objects on the guideway can be detected and a possible accident averted. In addition,

laser beam detectors would be used to determine if large objects, e.g., a tree branch, had

fallen on the guideway.

Continuous two-way voice communication capability between the vehicle operators and

the central traffic facility would be maintained to ensure that any relevant information

was rapidly interchanged. In the event of a sudden failure of two or more magnets, for

example, the vehicle operator might initiate an emergency braking procedure, and notify

the central facility accordingly.

Vehicle Component Safety. The superconducting magnets on the M-2000 vehicles are

extremely safe and reliable. The superconductor windings are very cryo-stable, with

large amounts of high-purity aluminum stabilizer, so that local flux jumps and conductor

movement cannot cause the magnets to quench. Superconductor magnets built to these
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 87

principles for a wide range of applications have demonstrated the ability to operate for

years without quenching or failing.

Moreover, the 16-quadrapole magnets (8 pairs of positive and negative polarity) are

individually energized and cooled. Failure of an individual magnet will not cause

adjacent magnets to fail. The M-2000 vehicle will remain safely levitated, even if 4

adjacent independent magnets were to simultaneously fail, an essentially zero-probability

event – much smaller than the probability of simultaneous engine failure on a jet airliner.

Even if levitation were to fail due to an event such as the collision of the vehicle with an

external object on the guideway, the M-2000 system is designed so that the vehicle would

come down safely on the guideway and slide to a controlled, non-injurious stop.

The M-2000 vehicle body has been designed with high-strength composite materials to

minimize the possibility of, and damage due to, the potential collision of the vehicle with

external objects, both those on the guideway and airborne objects (e.g., tree branches in a

high-wind situation). The ends and sides of the vehicle are very strong and the vehicle

shape is contoured to maximize the probability of deflecting impacting objects, with

minimum damage to the vehicle.

The M-2000 levitation and guidance system is designed to withstand extremely strong

external forces that act on the vehicle without causing it to contact the guideway. For

example, very strong crosswind gusts acting on a 483 km/h (300 mph) vehicle could

produce a lateral (sideways) force approaching 1 g. For Maglev systems with moderate

guidance stability, such a wind gust could make the vehicle contact the guideway. In

contrast, in the M-2000 Maglev System, the guidance stability is so strong that it would

take an external force of well over 2 g to make the vehicle contact the guideway – a much

larger force than ever could occur in actual operation.

Fire Safety. Maglev vehicles expose the public to similar fire hazards as conventional

electric propulsion rail cars. Recently finalized Federal rules for rail passenger

equipment cover a wide range of hazards and specify acceptable materials for interior

compartments. All of these specifications and standards are intended to reduce the

likelihood of a fire and to reduce the severity of a fire mainly by reducing the smoke

quantity and toxicity and heat content of any fire that should occur. The Maglev 2000

design will be required to satisfy the requirements pertaining to fire safety in the Federal

passenger equipment rule.

Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation. In most circumstances Maglev vehicles

will operate as intended and passengers will board and disembark through the normal

doors at stations. The extensive use of elevated Guideway makes evacuation procedures

a special concern. The Maglev 2000 design depends on evacuation tubes at each door to

provide emergency egress. In locations where the tubes are not practical (i.e., over water,

swamp, steep rugged terrain) special structures and stairways are provided leading to safe

areas. Onboard operating personnel would be responsible for assisting elderly or

disabled passengers. Applicable passenger equipment standards require rail systems to

complete an emergency plan and specify number of emergency exits with special lighting

and signage. During the site-specific design stage, local fire fighter and rescue workers

could be consulted to prepare emergency plans.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 88

All Maglev passenger stations and support and maintenance areas will be serviced by

State and local police, and local ambulance, fire, and hospital emergency services.

Existing emergency procedures and routes associated with currently operating

transportation, transit, and commuter facilities (buses, trains, and airplanes) are applicable

to support the Maglev operation. The medical equipment to be carried on the Maglev

vehicles will be specified through the route operator and U.S. regulations. Related

emergency plans, specialized evacuation procedures, and emergency preparedness

training should be addressed during final site design.

Summary

TRI Maglev TR08 and the M-2000 vehicles, guideways, facilities, and operation should

be designed to achieve or exceed all safety standards. Station safety is important to

consider. Safety within each station, including the concern of performing a controlled

vehicle stop, should be addressed during final site design. In particular, at-grade

crossings with other conventional transportation modes are almost completely eliminated,

resulting in a significantly reduced safety concern. Based on the safety record of other

Maglev deployments, the Maglev deployment alternatives should not have a significant

adverse impact to safety.

4.16.2 EMF/EMR Consequences and Mitigation: Maglev EMF Safety Compliance

Expected System Impacts. There are three categories of safety, health and

environmental (SHE) hazards of electromagnetic fields and radiation to be considered for

Maglev system and operations:

1. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR) levels for

human exposures, linked (albeit inconclusively) to environmental or

potentially adverse health effects. Research is continuing to resolve

uncertainties in health end effects and exposure (dose metrics).

2. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) due to induced, radiated or conducted

emissions from/to rail systems and equipment. This is considered in Section

4.18.

3. Electromagnetic compatibility referring to EMI “cross-talk” between different

components and subsystems.

To review electromagnetic field issues, FRA evaluated baseline system design, proposed

siting, and technical data from operational or test performance of the Maglev Alternative.

This comprehensive review addressed environmental levels of EMF and EMR, as well as

safety hazards related EMI testing in subsystem integration. Testing procedures and

standards for prevention and mitigation of radiative, conductive or inductive EMI

compatibility assurance are well established and are considered. Human exposure safety

was addressed by recommending compliance with the best (most protective) applicable

safety standards listed in the Tables in Section 3.16.2.

In addition, the FRA examined the relative levels of EMF/EMR for Maglev Alternatives

and their comparability to existing electric transportation systems, whose operation and

EMF/EMR environmental levels are well accepted by the public.

Presently, the lack of specific EMF, static fields and EMR information for proposed

Maglev systems (TR08 and M-2000) allows for only approximate EMF comparability
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 89

assessments. Extensive EMF information was obtained by FRA/Volpe Center for TR07

and found to be well below existing standards and guidelines. Figures 4.16-1 through

4.16-3, and Tables 4.16-1 and 4.16-2 below provide a comparison of average magnetic

field levels for surveyed transportation systems and for common home or office sources.

Average time-varying extremely low frequency (ELF) (0-3,000 Hz) magnetic fields in

the TR07 were comparable to average fields measured in other transportation systems, as

shown in these figures and tables. Although the EMF characteristics of power lines and

of home and office appliances are very different from Maglev, these magnetic field levels

are also shown for comparison in Table 4.16-1. It can be seen that average values of

magnetic field levels for TR07 are comparable to other electric transit and rail systems

and below applicable safety limits.

For six of the alternatives proposing to adopt and adapt the German Transrapid (TR08)

Maglev system, the technical EMF and EMR data and details of design and testing

performance are currently lacking. They are assumed to be comparable to the TR07

version, which was thoroughly evaluated by the FRA and Volpe Center Maglev safety

team under the National Maglev Initiative in 1990-95 (see Section 3.16). TR07 data, to

the extent they are applicable, indicate that there are no major EMF or EMR issues that

cannot be cost-effectively mitigated in the planning, siting and design stages. If

necessary, a mixture of EMF and EMR mitigation strategies described below can be

considered to control any potential safety or environmental impacts of concern.

Because no EMF/EMR data is available for the superconducting M-2000 Florida

Alternative, the Japanese MLU and MLX Maglev system characteristics and mitigation

strategies for passengers, workers and wayside exposures to static magnetic fields are

used for estimation and comparison with applicable standards. For instance, in-vehicle

floor shielding and redesign to move passenger seating as far away as possible from the

superconducting magnets under the floor, have reduced the static fields from the initial

200 gauss, to below 20 gauss measured at floor level (Ikehata, 1999). Environmental

magnetic fields for the MLX-002 were found to be below 2 gauss under the guideway

and rapidly diminish as distance increases from the guideway along the ROW (Sasakawa,

1998). The large power conditioning station at Yamanashi has perimeter fencing and

controlled access to manage exposures. Maintenance to the vehicle superconducting

magnets is done after quenching, in null fields. Similar exposure management and

mitigation strategies could be adopted for the M-2000, with special attention to

vulnerable wearers of medical electronic devices susceptible to EMI from static fields

above 1 gauss. The FRA may also require posted warnings as needed to protect aging

workers and passengers who are likely to use medical implants.

The combined impact of Maglev EMF and EMR and of other present sources were

considered, as a required human exposure safety standard for EMR (ACGIH, 1999 and

IEEE, 1999a). Broadband radio frequency radiation exposures are considered by

comparing and adding the ratios relative to the respective limits for several frequency

ranges. Therefore, Maglev Alternatives with preexisting EMF and EMR emission

sources must inventory all sources located in/near their alternative corridors, and conduct

a broadband survey of current levels of exposure. Only then can the potential for impact

be assessed from static fields, ELF/EMF, and EMR from proposed Maglev facilities and

operations. During the final design, the design and operation of the Maglev systems will
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 90

be assessed for compliance with all applicable EMF/EMR health guidelines and

standards listed in Tables 3.16-1 through 3.16-4.

Compliance with Applicable Safety Standards

Federal agencies are adopting and adapting standards and guidelines issued by

professional or consensus standards organizations as required by PL 104-113, the

National Technology Transfer Act of 1996. The FRA is committed to ensuring

compliance of rail developers and operators with the most current and protective safety,

health and environmental guidelines.

Existing U.S. and international human exposure safety standards and guidelines for

exposures to static magnetic fields, EMF at power frequency and harmonics, and higher

frequency (through microwave) EMR are voluntary (see Section 3.16). Their primary

goal is protection from short-term acute effects, e.g., limiting whole body or localized

heating, prevention of induced neurostimulation, visible effects (magnetophosphenes),

limit currents through the heart and limbs, prevention of electric shock, and RF burns.

These standards have considered, but are not aimed at prevention of long-term, low level

chronic exposures linked with potentially adverse health effects. Existing EMI/EMC

standards (see Table 3.18-2) and guidelines will prevent and limit EMI impacts from

stray currents and voltages and ensure the safe operability and compatibility of

subsystems in the vehicle and along the wayside.

The FRA preferred approach is to recommend adoption of the most protective exposure

safety standards for both workers and the public, in order to allay high public anxiety

with regard to new technologies and EMF/EMR, and to facilitate the adoption of new

magnetic levitation technologies. In the interim, the FRA endorses a “prudent

avoidance” policy regarding EMF, as advocated by WHO (WHO, 2000). The FRA

recommends voluntary industry and Maglev developer/operator compliance with existing

international and national EMF and RF exposure safety standards and guidelines. FRA’s

proactive approach to monitoring state-of-science on EMF health effects was evident in

the EMF technical studies included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

and the FRA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northeast Corridor Electrification

Project, which are directly applicable to the selected alternative for Maglev system

development (DOT, 1994 and DOT, 1995). FRA recognized that public concern about

EMF/EMR, safety, health and environmental impacts by requiring baseline surveys

before starting system construction and periodic monitoring and after commencing test

operations, to ensure compliance with the most protective applicable safety standards. In

addition, a long-term EMF monitoring program along the NEC and near power

substations was established to assure that excessive environmental and occupational EMF

exposures are reduced as needed, ensuring the resolution of uncertainties in potential

adverse health impacts. A similar approach would be applicable to a Maglev

Deployment Project.

Results of EMF for the TRI TR07 vehicle show it complies with German, international,

and U.S. standards. Thus, the potential of the proposed Maglev TR08 Deployment

project to have any significant adverse safety impact is low. Health or environmental

impacts from EMF/EMR are unlikely, if TR08 is similar to TR07 in design and

performance.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 91

A team of experts will visit the test track in Germany to carry out measurements of EMF

and EMR levels for the TR08, in order to collect data for the actual Maglev system that

would be implemented. Further analysis would be carried out to verify compliance with

U.S., German, and other international applicable standards.

The bar chart in Figure 4.16-1 gives the MFL values, averaged over time and spatially,

inside different types of transportation vehicles. The bars show the average values of

MFL in milliGauss (1 mG = 1 microTesla) for 4 frequency sub-bands within the ELF

range of 5-3000 Hz: sub-power frequency, 60 Hz power frequency, harmonics to 300 Hz

and higher to 3 KHz. Each electrotechnology has its characteristic "spectral signature"

and sometimes complex and highly variable in time, space and frequency MFL. Data

plotted are averages of many samples taken at different locations and across time, e.g.,

with sensors recording at passenger's ankle, waist and head heights in several vehicles.

Complete transportation systems surveys were performed by Electric Research and

Management, Inc. for the Volpe Center, sponsored by FRA and DOE (DOT, 1993a;

Dietrich et al, 1999) of which is summarized in this section. The original reports contain

extensive figures and statistical tables, with detailed information on EMF at different

locations for each transportation system surveyed, including the TR07 Maglev.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average Magnetic Field, mG

ELF 5-3000Hz

Low

Power 60 Hz

Harmonics

High Ferry Boat

NEC - unelectrified

Escalators

Moving Walkways

Electric Cars and Light Trucks

Conventional Cars and Light Trucks

TGV - 50 Hz

Jetliner

Shuttle Tram (AC Electric)

Conventional Transit Bus

Electric Shuttle Bus

Commuter Train (AC Electric)

NEC 60 Hz - electrified

TR-07 Maglev

Source: (Dietrich et al, 1999; DOT, 1992)

Figure 4.16-1 - Average Magnetic Field Levels (MFLs) in 13 Transportation

Systems
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 92

Figure 4.16-2 presents the relative magnetic field levels (1 milliGauss= 0.1 microTesla)

averaged over time, ELF frequency band and locations, inside TR07 Maglev and other

transportation vehicles and facilities (airports). The EMF environment for each

electrotechnology varies with frequency, speed or power loading, and location over time,

unlike the stable and predictable EMF for power lines.

 Source: (Dietrich et al, 1999, DOT, 1993a)

Figure 4.16-2 - Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Magnetic Fields (EMF)

Figure 4.16-3 compares the available human EMF (60 Hz) exposure safety standards

tabulated in Section 3.16 to average ELF/EMF levels for the TR-07 Maglev, relative to

typical transmission and distribution power lines and common home appliances. The bar

heights are averages of maximum levels, and the line on each bar corresponds to mean

levels. Bars are shown for each spectral band in the ELF/EMF range (to 3 KHz: subpower frequency (3-45 Hz), power frequency (50-60 Hz), power harmonics (65-300 Hz)

and higher frequency harmonics.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 93

Source: (DOT, 1992; and Table in Section 3.16.2)

Figure 4.16-3 - Maglev EMF Levels Relative to Common EMF Sources and

Applicable Safety Standards and Guidelines

Table 4.16-1 - Comparison of EMF in TR07 Time-Varying Fields and

Other Appliances

Source/Location Distance

(m)

Magnetic Field

(mG)

TR07 Passenger Compartment

(< 47.5 Hz)

Floor level –

Head level

100

20

TR07 Guideway (< 47.5 Hz) 3 65-95

10 20

TR07 Power Equipment 5 20

TR07 Feeder Cables < 1 2

Microwave Oven (60 Hz.) 0.3 40-80

Electric Range (60 Hz.) 0.03 60-2,000

Hair Dryer (60 Hz.) 0.03 60-20,000

Television (60 Hz.) 1 0.1-2

Source: (ARC, 2000; DOT, 1992)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 94

Table 4.16-2 - Comparison of Average ELF/EMF Fields

for Various Transportation Systems

Transportation System RMS Field

(mG)

TR07 50.6

NEC-60 Hz 52.5

NEC-25 Hz 133.8

Ferry Boat <1

Escalators 2

Moving Walkways 4

Electric Cars and Light Trucks 6

Conventional Cars and Light Trucks 6

Jetliner 14

Electric Shuttle Tram 14

Conventional Transit Bus 17

Electric Shuttle Bus 20

Electric Commuter Train 50

Source: (DOT, 1992, Dietrich et al, 1999)

4.16.3 Mitigation

Siting. Electric power distribution and conditioning facilities can be selected to

minimize EMF impacts to exposed people at low- or no-cost, while maintaining

efficiency and safe operability. The most cost-effective EMF control approach is

prevention through siting and design of power generation and delivery systems, and the

selection of signaling and data communication frequencies so as to avoid inadvertent

interference with sensitive wayside facilities. Where facility siting or guideway power

lines and inverters, switching and power substations are severely constrained, other EMF

mitigation options below can be considered and implemented as necessary.

Comparability of EMF with other Electrified Rail Systems. A useful model for

Maglev system alternative selection is the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project

strategy of cost-effective EMF prevention in planning and design stages: overhead

catenary system, and Power Transfer Facilities Design were selected (2x 25kV catenary

with auto-transformers) so as to minimize environmental EMF along the ROW and to

provide partial magnetic field cancellation (except for passengers who sit inside the

current loop). Away from the track, the EMF was expected to be half that produced by

each overhead wire current for conventional rail transit due to this design.

In addition to EMF field reduction, the TGV analog design offered EMI minimization at

the source, by balancing the load with respect to ground through the use of a return feeder

wire for the catenary current, and by minimizing the dynamically induced EMF in

parallel conductors (gas and water pipelines, bridge railings) and in power lines, or

telephone wires in the near- field. Similar strategies of EMF avoidance through design of

the TR08 power and propulsion for the electromagnet levitation and guidance and third

rail power conditioning and supply systems are desirable.

Prudent Avoidance. In response to public concern, there are cost-effective EMF

“prudent avoidance” and prevention and reduction strategies – explicitly advocated by
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 95

the WHO and by NIEHS. Also, workers’ exposures to EMF can be minimized through

training, as well as work rules, assignments and scheduling. Public EMF exposures can

be also avoided through: buffer zones available using zoning restrictions along the ROW

and vicinity; posted warning for pacemaker wearers of any unsafe EMF levels; and

fencing around electrical facilities and other EMF sources to restrict public access.

Finally, if at any time it is determined that unsafe EMF conditions exist, there are retrofit

mitigation options, such as shielding or installation of dummy wires to counter

unbalanced transmission and distribution line loads. Similarly, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) and NIOSH require hazard communication (hazcom) and

hazard awareness training programs for highly exposed workers.

Passive or Active Magnetic Shielding. A number of cost-effective “industry best

practices” are available to rail designers, builders and operators to prevent, minimize,

manage or mitigate unreasonable EMF exposures to workers and the public, or any

potentially adverse EMF/EMR safety impacts from undesirable EMC or EMI effects.

EMI mitigation options might include: redesign of distribution lines for partial shielding

(bi-filar windings, co-axial cables in metal shields), providing dummy return wires for

unbalanced currents or other form of active feedback currents for shielding; magnetic or

simply metallic sheet enclosures as shielding of transformers.

4.16.4 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

public safety and health directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to

consider potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from

precluding the Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a

Maglev system.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

promoting increased travel demand. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be an

increase in intercity travel demand, which may result in motor vehicle, air, and light rail

transportation infrastructure expansion. The transportation environment has existing

EMF/EMR producers and more are added each day. The use in transportation of twoway communications, cellular telephones, global positioning systems and other emitters

is growing daily, adding to the radio frequency environment. Thus, the impacts

associated with new transportation infrastructure and operating systems need to be

evaluated. However, there have been no clear epidemiological studies that confirm

potential impact from these and other transportation EMF sources, and research is

continuing.

4.17 NOISE & VIBRATION

This section provides a brief overview of Maglev noise and vibration characteristics and

impact analysis. More detailed discussion may be found in FRA’s guidance manuals

entitled High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(FRA, 1998) and Noise from High Speed Maglev Systems (FRA, 1993), as well as in

FTA’s guidance manual entitled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA,
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 96

1995). Although this section focuses entirely on Federal impact criteria, state and local

criteria, where applicable, must also be considered. Appendix F provides definitions for

noise and vibration impact analysis terminology, including definitions of commonly used

noise descriptors.

In evaluating potential Maglev noise and vibration impacts, two components must be

examined. In increasing order of importance, these include noise and vibration produced

by: (1) maintenance and operational facilities; and (2) operations. These topics are

addressed separately in each of the following sections.

Facility Noise and Vibration. The assessment of potential facility noise and vibration

include the effects of increased roadway traffic in and out of supporting facilities (e.g.,

parking lots, parking garages, passenger stations), as well as noise and vibration from

equipment including generators, transformers, etc. Typically, these specific issues are

addressed when more detailed project design data are available.

Operational Noise. Operational noise is the primary area of interest with respect to

potential project impact. These impacts may span an entire corridor for the duration of

operational activities. Specific components of Maglev operational noise include engine

noise, for vehicle propulsion, mechanical and vehicle/guideway interaction noise, and

aerodynamic noise. Table 4.17-1 identifies the approximate ranges of speeds for each of

the dominant noise sources.

Table 4.17-1 - Maglev Dominant Noise Sources

Category Speed Range km/h

(mph)

Dominant Noise Sources

I 0 - 31 (0 – 50) Engine Propulsion Noise

II 31-99 (50 – 160) Mechanical/Guideway

III 99-186 (160 – 300) Aerodynamic

 Source: (FRA, 1998)

FRA impact criteria (FRA, 1998) gauge potential impacts by: (1) analyzing absolute

project sound levels; and (2) comparing outdoor sound levels before and during

operations. Conditions, defined for 3 land use categories, are designated as No Impact,

Impact, or Severe Impact. Table 4.17-2 summarizes the three land-use categories.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 97

Table 4.17-2 - FRA Land Use Categories

Land-Use

Category

Noise

Descriptor

Land-Use Category Description

1 Leq(h) Land primarily intended for serenity and quiet, including National Historic

Landmarks, outdoor amphitheaters, etc.

2 Ldn

Land containing residences and other buildings typically used for sleep where

there is a particular sensitivity to noise at night, including homes, hospitals,

hotels, etc.

3 Leq(h)

Land containing institutional buildings used primarily during the daytime and

evening, including schools, libraries, churches, and other buildings with interior

spaces requiring quiet (i.e., medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios

and concert halls). This category also includes some historical sites, parks and

recreational facilities.

 Source: (FRA, 1998)

Figure 4.17-1 summarizes FRA’s impact criteria. Originally based on human annoyance

studies, the impact criteria define regions of “no impact,” “impact,” and “severe impact,”

based on a combination of existing noise exposures and predicted project noise

exposures. “Impact” is defined for combinations of existing and project sound levels

believed to be noticeable to most people, but not of sufficient level to cause strong,

adverse reactions from the community. “Severe Impact” is defined for existing/project

sound levels believed to highly annoy a significant percentage of people.

 Source: (FRA, 1998)

Figure 4.17-1 - FRA Impact Criteria for High-Speed Rail Projects

Startle Effect From High-Speed Transit. A phenomenon commonly referred to as

startle effect must also be examined when evaluating potential noise impacts for Maglev

operations. Startle effect is human annoyance due to the high onset rate of a Maglev
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 98

train’s sound signature. Onset rate is the average rate of change of increasing soundpressure level, in decibels per second (dB/sec), associated with the rapid approach of a

high-speed train. Sounds with fast onset rates tend to be more annoying than sounds with

less rapid variation or steady noise with the same maximum noise level. Research,

primarily investigating the effect of high onset rates by low-flying military aircraft,

indicates that people are increasingly annoyed by sudden sounds with onset rates greater

than about 15 dB per second (dB/sec). For example, onset rates of greater than 15 dB/sec

occur for receivers within 18 m (60 ft) of a 241 km/h (150 mph) train, and occur at

greater distances for trains at higher speeds. When onset rates exceed about 30 dB/sec,

people tend to be startled, or surprised by the sudden onset of the sound. This is known

as the startle effect.

Figure 4.17-2 below presents the relationship between distance from the guideway and

the speed of a Maglev train for startle annoyance. The curve represents the distance

within which startle effects can occur.

 Source: (FRA, 1998)

Figure 4.17-2 - Speed/Distance Startle Effect Relationship

It should be noted that since acoustic data for low-level military aircraft overflights were

used in the derivation of this relationship, its direct applicability to Maglev operations,

which are somewhat more predictable in nature than aircraft overflights, may be

questioned.

In addition to actual Maglev operational noise, increased roadway noise at and near

supporting passenger stations may result in impacts. As a result, Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR Part 772) are utilized to augment FRA

guidance in the assessment of potential noise impacts. Specifically, the FHWA peakhour Leq Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) is used for determining peak-hour impacts for

candidate projects. Peak-hour data are considered to be conservative, given that all other

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

SPEED (mph)

DISTANCE (ft)
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP



KRXUV RI WKH GD\ ZLOO OLNHO\ KDYH OHVV QRLVH H[SRVXUH DQG WKHUHIRUH OHVV LPSDFW LI DQ\

7DEOHEHORZVXPPDUL]HVWKH)+:$1$&

7DEOH)+:$1RLVH$EDWHPHQW&ULWHULD

$FWLYLW\

&DWHJRU\

1RLVH$EDWHPHQW

&ULWHULD/HTG%$ 'HVFULSWLRQ

$ ([WHULRU

/DQGVRQZKLFKVHUHQLW\DQGTXLHWDUHRIH[WUDRUGLQDU\

6LJQLILFDQFH DQG VHUYH DQ LPSRUWDQW SXEOLF QHHG DQG ZKHUH WKH

SUHVHUYDWLRQRIWKRVHTXDOLWLHVLVHVVHQWLDOLIWKHDUHDLVWRFRQWLQXH

WRVHUYHLWVLQWHQGHGSXUSRVH

% ([WHULRU

3LFQLF DUHDV UHFUHDWLRQ DUHDV SOD\JURXQGV DFWLYH VSRUWV DUHDV

SDUNV UHVLGHQFHV PRWHOV KRWHOV VFKRROV FKXUFKHVOLEUDULHV DQG

KRVSLWDOV

& ([WHULRU 'HYHORSHG ODQGV SURSHUWLHV RU DFWLYLWLHV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ

&DWHJRULHV$RU%DERYH

'  8QGHYHORSHGODQGV

( ,QWHULRU 5HVLGHQFHV PRWHOV KRWHOV SXEOLF PHHWLQJ URRPV VFKRROV

FKXUFKHVOLEUDULHVKRVSLWDOVDQGDXGLWRULXPV

6RXUFH)5$

7KH1$&LQGLFDWHDQLPSDFWZKHQDQHZSURMHFWUHVXOWVLQDVXEVWDQWLDOG%$RU

JUHDWHULQFUHDVHLQSHDNKRXU/HTDQGRU SURMHFWQRLVHOHYHOVH[FHHGRUFRPHZLWKLQ

G%$RIWKHOHYHOVKLJKOLJKWHGLQ7DEOHDERYH

2SHUDWLRQDO9LEUDWLRQ3RWHQWLDO JURXQGERUQH YLEUDWLRQLPSDFWPXVW EHDQDO\]HGZLWK

UHVSHFWWRERWK3KXPDQDQQR\DQFH ́DQG3EXLOGLQJGDPDJH ́ )5$7KLVDQDO\VLV

LV FRQGXFWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR ODQGXVH FDWHJRU\  )5$ UHTXLUHV WKDW KXPDQ DQQR\DQFH EH

DVVHVVHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHFDWHJRULHVDQGYLEUDWLRQOLPLWVSUHVHQWHGLQ7DEOH

7DEOH*URXQGERUQH9LEUDWLRQ,PSDFW&ULWHULD

*URXQGERUQH9LEUDWLRQ,PSDFW

/HYHOVG%UHμLQVHF /DQG 8VH

&DWHJRU\ )UHTXHQW

(YHQWV

!SHUGD\

,QIUHTXHQW

(YHQWV

SHUGD\

/DQG8VH&DWHJRU\'HVFULSWLRQ

 G% G% %XLOGLQJVZKHUHORZDPELHQWYLEUDWLRQLV

HVVHQWLDOIRULQWHULRURSHUDWLRQV

 G% G% 5HVLGHQFHVDQGEXLOGLQJVZKHUHSHRSOH

QRUPDOO\VOHHS

 G% G% ,QVWLWXWLRQDOODQGXVHVZLWKSULPDU\GD\WLPH

XVH

6RXUFH)5$

6RPH EXLOGLQJV ZLWK XVHV SDUWLFXODUO\ VHQVLWLYH WR YLEUDWLRQ KDYH XQLTXH )5$

JURXQGERUQH YLEUDWLRQ LPSDFW FULWHULD  7DEOH  EHORZ VXPPDUL]HV WKH YLEUDWLRQ

FULWHULDIRU6SHFLDO%XLOGLQJV
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP



7DEOH6XPPDU\RI9LEUDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU6SHFLDO%XLOGLQJV

*URXQGERUQH9LEUDWLRQ,PSDFW/HYHOVG%UH

7\SHRI%XLOGLQJRU μLQVHF

5RRP )UHTXHQW(YHQWV

!SHUGD\

,QIUHTXHQW(YHQWV

SHUGD\

&RQFHUWKDOOV G% G%

79VWXGLRV G% G%

5HFRUGLQJVWXGLRV G% G%

$XGLWRULXPV G% G%

7KHDWHUV G% G%

6RXUFH)5$

)LQDOO\IRUSDUWLFXODUO\VHQVLWLYHVWUXFWXUHVVXFKDVIUDJLOHDQGIUDJLOHKLVWRULFEXLOGLQJV

)5$EXLOGLQJGDPDJHFULWHULDDUHG%DQGG% UHVSHFWLYHO\)RUH[DPSOHEDVHG

RQGDWDSURYLGHGE\WKH0DJOHYPDQXIDFWXUHUVXFKVWUXFWXUHVZLWKLQDSSUR[LPDWHO\P

 IW RI WKH JXLGHZD\ ZRXOG EH VXVFHSWLEOH WR GDPDJH DQG VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG DV

SRWHQWLDOO\LPSDFWHG

*HQHUDO$VVXPSWLRQV

7\SLFDOO\ ZRUVWFDVH VFHQDULRV ZHUH XVHG LQ SHUIRUPLQJ DQDO\VHV  )RU H[DPSOH

RSHUDWLRQDO PRGHOLQJ VFHQDULRV W\SLFDOO\ GR QRW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WHUUDLQ RU EXLOGLQJ

VWUXFWXUH VKLHOGLQJ ZKLFK PD\ UHVXOW LQ ORZHU SURMHFW VRXQG OHYHOV DW QRLVH UHFHSWRUV

$OVR ZKHUH VHYHUDO FRUULGRU RSWLRQV DUH SRVVLEOH IRU D SDUWLFXODU SURMHFW UHODWHG

FRPSXWDWLRQVDUHEDVHGRQZRUVWFDVHDVVXPSWLRQV

,QDGGLWLRQPDQ\YDULDEOHVDUHVWLOOXQGHILQHGDWWKLVVWDJHRIWKHSURFHVV&RQVHTXHQWO\

LQ WKH FDVH RI H[LVWLQJ VRXQG OHYHOV FRQVHUYDWLYHO\ ORZ YDOXHV DUH XVHG IRU HYDOXDWLQJ

SRWHQWLDOLPSDFWV6LPLODUO\LQWKHFDVHRIWUDLQOHQJWKVWKHORQJHVWWUDLQVDYDLODEOHIURP

WKHPDQXIDFWXUHUDUHW\SLFDOO\XVHGLQWKHHYDOXDWLRQ$WHDPRIH[SHUWVZLOOYLVLWWKHWHVW

WUDFNLQ *HUPDQ\WR FDUU\ RXW PHDVXUHPHQWV RI QRLVH DQG YLEUDWLRQOHYHOV IRUWKH 75

V\VWHPLQRUGHUWRFROOHFWGDWDIRUWKHDFWXDO0DJOHYV\VWHPWKDWZRXOGEHLPSOHPHQWHG

$QRWKHU YHU\ LPSRUWDQW DVVXPSWLRQ KDV WR GR ZLWK WKH VSHFLILF PRGHO RI WKH 0DJOHY

YHKLFOH 7KH SRWHQWLDO QRLVH DQG YLEUDWLRQ LPSDFWV IRU DOO WKH 0DJOHY $OWHUQDWLYHV KDYH

EHHQ HVWLPDWHG EDVHG RQ 75 GDWD SURYLGHG E\ WKH PDQXIDFWXUHU  7KH QHZHU PRGHO

75WUDLQZKLFKWKHPDQXIDFWXUHUFODLPVLV TXLHWHULV SURSRVHG IRU XVHLQHDFK RIWKH

FRUULGRUV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI )ORULGD ZKHUH D GLIIHUHQW WHFKQRORJ\ LV SURSRVHG  $V

VXFK DOO SRWHQWLDO QRLVH LPSDFWV HVWLPDWHG XVLQJ WKH 75 GDWD VKRXOG EH FRQVHUYDWLYH

IURPDQRLVHDQGYLEUDWLRQLPSDFWVWDQGSRLQW

:LWK UHJDUGWR RSHUDWLRQDO QRLVHPLWLJDWLRQ IURP QRLVH EDUULHUV XQOHVV RWKHUZLVH QRWHG

HLJKWGHFLEHOVRIUHGXFWLRQLVDVVXPHG

&DOLIRUQLD

&HQWUDOL]HG DQG GHFHQWUDOL]HG PDLQWHQDQFH IDFLOLWLHV FHQWUDO RSHUDWLRQDO IDFLOLWLHV RU

VZLWFK ER[HV DUHORFDWHG DZD\ IURP SRWHQWLDO QRLVHVHQVLWLYH UHFHSWRUV%DVHG RQWKHLU

SODQQHG ORFDWLRQ DZD\ IURP UHFHSWRUV WKHUH VKRXOG EH DQ LQVLJQLILFDQW QHJDWLYH LPSDFW
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 101

from noise. However, further planning and analysis must be performed to determine

potential noise impacts due to passenger stations, guideway maintenance facilities and

electrical substations.

In order to evaluate potential project-noise impacts, baseline conditions must be

determined. FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment

(FRA, 1998) was used to determine existing noise exposures. As a component of this

analysis, areas located across existing highways from candidate routes were excluded

because: (1) the large distance separating potential noise receptors and the Maglev

operations; and (2) the potential for highway noise to “mask” Maglev noise.

Table 4.17-6 summarizes the anticipated operational-noise impacts of the candidate

corridor, both with and without mitigation. Impacted and severely impacted sites include

primarily single-family, multifamily and mobile homes, as well as schools, hotels,

churches and recreation and community centers. This table shows that there is a potential

of a significant adverse noise impact with the Maglev operation.

Table 4.17-6 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - California

Number of Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Impact 2,903 1,986

Severe Impact 1,976 1,006

 Source: (CM, 2000)

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine if there will be any startle

effects as a result of the alternative.

No buildings are within minimum distances defined by FRA’s most-stringent vibration

impact criteria. Thus, no significant adverse building-damage vibration impacts are

anticipated as a result of the alternative. Human-annoyance impacts are not specifically

evaluated at this early stage of planning, but should be considered during final design

stage.

4.17.2 Florida

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine what, if any, will be the

impacts due to passenger stations, electrical substations, guideway and fixed maintenance

facilities, as well as construction of the guideway.

In order to evaluate potential project-noise impacts, baseline conditions must be

determined. FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment

(FRA, 1998) was used to determine existing-noise exposures. This analysis assumes the

M-2000 vehicle has similar noise emissions as the TRO7. Given these estimated

existing-sound exposures, Table 4.17-7 below summarizes anticipated operational-noise

impacts. This table shows that there is a potential of a significant adverse noise impact

with the Maglev operation.

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine if there will be any startle

effects as a result of the alternative.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 102

Based on FRA impact criteria, no building-damage or human-annoyance impacts are

anticipated as a result of the alternative. Thus, the potential of a significant adverse

vibration impact is not anticipated from Maglev operation.

Table 4.17-7 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Florida

Number of Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Impact 11

Severe Impact 5

(N/A*)

*Detailed information is not currently available at this planning level to analyze the number of

 impacted sites with mitigation. Source: (FDOT, 2000)

4.17.3 Georgia

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine what, if any, will be the

impacts due to passenger stations, electrical substations and guideway maintenance

facilities. There are no expected impacts due to maintenance facilities given FRA’s landuse criteria and their proximity to commercial lands.

In order to evaluate potential project-noise impacts, baseline conditions must be

determined. FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment

(FRA, 1998) was used to determine existing-noise exposures. Additionally, ambient

sound-level measurements were undertaken at 20 of the sites originally identified as

potentially impacted.

Table 4.17-8 summarizes the anticipated operational noise impacts of the alternative,

both with and without mitigation. Impacted and severely impacted sites include

primarily single-family and multifamily homes, as well as mobile homes, hotels, schools

and churches. The eighteen impacted sites (without mitigation) include 369 receptors.

Areas located across existing highways from candidate routes were typically not

impacted because of the large distance separating potential noise receptors and the

Maglev operations. This table shows that there is a potential of a significant adverse noise

impact with the Maglev operation to 369 receptors within the 18 sites.

Table 4.17-8 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Georgia

Number of Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Impact 115

Severe Impact 42 N/A*

*More information is needed to determine the level of impact for two sites with mitigation.

 Source: (ARC, 2000)

Based on FRA impact criteria, startle effects may potentially occur for two sites,

including 86 single-family residences and one apartment building.

Based on FRA criteria, no human-annoyance vibration impacts are expected for the

candidate corridor. Thus, the potential of a significant adverse vibration impact is not

anticipated from Maglev operation. There are an undefined number of buildings that may
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 103

potentially be damaged near fly-over portions of the guideway (i.e., within 9 m (30 ft) of

the guideway), however more-detailed source data are required from the TRI Maglev

manufacturer to conduct a complete analysis during the final design stage.

4.17.4 Louisiana

Based on FRA impact criteria, there are no expected noise impacts from maintenance

facilities, substations, and potential passenger stations. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

In order to evaluate potential project noise impacts, baseline conditions must be

determined. A combination of comprehensive ambient sound-level measurements and

FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment (FRA, 1998)

was used to determine existing noise exposures.

Table 4.17-9 below presents a summary of impacted sites. Data are not available to

determine the number of impacted sites with implementation of noise mitigation;

however, potential noise-mitigation measures include barriers and placement of the

guideway. This table shows that there is a potential of a significant adverse noise impact

with the Maglev operation.

Table 4.17-9 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Louisiana

Number of Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Impact 401 129

Severe Impact 271 12)

*Detailed information is not currently available at this planning level to analyze the

number of impacted sites with mitigation.

Source: (GNOEC, 2000)

No startle impacts are expected as a result of the alternative. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

After completion of anticipated land acquisition for the Maglev system, no human

annoyance vibration impacts are expected. However, it is premature to accurately

analyze this site-specific impact until the final design stage.

4.17.5 Maryland

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine potential noise impacts

due to maintenance facilities, operational facilities, switches, passenger stations,

electrical substations, and construction of the alternative. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment (FRA, 1998)

was used to determine existing-noise exposures at these sites. Table 4.17-10 summarizes

the anticipated operational-noise impacts of the corridor, both with and without

mitigation, in the form of noise barriers. Impacted and severely impacted units include

primarily single-family and multifamily homes, as well as some schools and motels. This
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 104

table shows that there is a potential of a significant adverse noise impact with the Maglev

operation.

Table 4.17-10 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Maryland

Number of Impacted Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Impact 115-446

Severe Impact 52-316 45-547*

* More information is needed to determine the level of impact for sites with mitigation.

Source: (MTA, 2000)

No investigation of startle effects has been documented. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

Vibration impacts should be considered for potential impacts. However, it is premature

to accurately analyze this site-specific impact until the final design stage.

4.17.6 Nevada

It is expected that the final locations of passenger stations, electrical substations and

maintenance areas will be determined during the final design phase so as to minimize or

eliminate potential noise impacts.

FRA’s methodology for estimating noise exposure for general assessment (FRA, 1998)

was used to determine existing noise exposures. Table 4.17-11 below summarizes the

anticipated operational-noise impacts of the candidate corridor, both with and without

mitigation. Impacted and severely impacted sites include primarily single- and

multifamily homes and hotels, as well as mobile-home parks and conference facilities.

Guideway placement and/or the construction of noise barriers is suggested as a means of

minimizing these impacts. Based on the level of impact identified in Table 4.17-11 a

moderate adverse noise impact is anticipated from Maglev operation.

Table 4.17-11 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites - Nevada

Number of Impacted Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation*

Impact 1 1

Severe Impact 3 0

Analysis was not performed detailing which sites would be impacted, or to what degree, after implementation of noise

mitigation measures. This summary was derived using a conservatively assumed 6 dBA of noise reduction due to the

construction of barriers.

Source: (CNSSTC, 2000)

Potential startle effects have been identified for one hotel site, as well as motorists on I15. However, it is premature to accurately analyze this impact until the final design

stage.

Based on preliminary speed profiles for the alternative, there may be vibration-annoyance

impacts at three residential sites, two motel sites and one RV park site. Potential
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 105

building-damage impacts are not addressed in the EA. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this site-specific impact until the final design stage.

4.17.7 Pennsylvania

Further planning and analysis must be performed to determine potential noise impacts

due to maintenance facilities, operational facilities, switches, passenger stations,

electrical substations, and construction of the corridor. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

A preliminary analysis was done to quantify receptor impacts based on typical operating

parameters predicted for this alternative. Based on this information, a worst case impact

zone was developed. The results are included in Table 4.17-12

Table 4.17-12 - Summary of Potentially Impacted Sites – Pennsylvania

Number of Impacted Sites

Without Mitigation With Mitigation*

Impact 225-937 N/A

Severe Impact 0 N/A

Analysis was not performed detailing which sites would be impacted, or to what degree, after implementation of noise

mitigation measures. This summary was derived using a conservatively assumed 6 dBA of noise reduction due to the

construction of barriers.

Source: (CNSSTC, 2000)

No investigation of startle effects has been documented. However, it is premature to

accurately analyze this impact until the final design stage.

No vibration impacts are anticipated based on FRA noise and vibration documentation on

Maglev operations (FRA, 1998) relative to more traditional high-speed rail. However, it

is premature to accurately analyze this site-specific impact until the final design stage.

4.17.8 Mitigation

Table 4.17-13 below summarizes typical mitigation measures for minimizing Maglev

noise impact during the construction phase, the operational phase, and with regard to

support facilities. Although several of the mitigation measures have been identified in

the various EAs, noise barriers generally have been identified as the most effective

measure for mitigating operational noise. As specified in FRA 1998, depending on

source-to-receptor geometry, between six and ten decibels of reduction can be expected

as a result of the construction of noise barriers.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 106

Table 4.17-13 - Summary of Noise Mitigation Measures

Construction Operation Facilities

Timing of work Route selection Site selection

Muffling of diesel engines Speed adjustments Noise barriers

Use of newest equipment Noise barriers

Minimal use of impact pile driving

Temporary noise barriers

Effective community public relations

Initiate noise monitoring program

Sound insulation of

buildings

Careful selection of public

address systems

 Source: (MTA, 2000; FDOT, 2000; GNOEC, 2000; ARC, 2000; CNSSTC, 2000; CM, 2000; PAAC, 2000)

Potential vibration mitigation techniques, some of which are presented in the various

EAs, include:

§ Upgrading guideway support columns.

§ Increasing elevation of guideway.

§ Increasing mass of guideway supports.

§ Increasing mass of guideway foundation.

In general, detailed mitigation discussions are not identified at this early planning stage,

but will have to be prepared for any project(s) that proceeds to the site-specific EIS

phase. Including a discussion of detailed mitigation measures in this PEIS is somewhat

premature since detailed alternative information is not yet available.

4.17.9 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no noise and

vibration impacts directly from a Maglev system. However, it is important to consider

potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative that could arise from precluding the

Maglev Deployment Program and the potential benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

It is anticipated that economic and population growth will continue around the country,

promoting increased intercity travel demand and ensuing congestion. Under the NoAction Alternative there would be an increase in intercity travel demand, which may

result in motor vehicle, air, and light rail transportation infrastructure expansion.

Consequently, as traffic volume increases and transportation infrastructure is developed

and expanded, the associated, potentially adverse noise and vibration effects will also

continue to escalate. Typically, states (and/or regions) have short- and long-term multimodel transportation plans in place. The No-Action Alternative assumes current shortand long-term development plans will be implemented in the absence of the construction

of a Maglev corridor. Thus, it is expected that the No-Action Alternative could result in

more significant noise and vibration impacts than those associated with the Maglev

Alternatives.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 107

4.18 ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION

The potential for adverse electromagnetic interference (EMI) safety hazards also must be

considered. Railroad and transit owners and operators usually study EMI during

planning and design, as well as address any problems during acceptance testing of new

locomotives or signal and control systems. Traction power systems, as well as motive

power equipment, typically introduce non-sinusoidal currents and higher harmonics

(ripple) into the electrified railway system. These produce varying levels of electrical

noise. Similarly, electronic switching using fast thyristors (GTOs, IGBT) and Variable

Voltage Variable Frequency (VVVF) power and speed controllers, as well as the TR07

pulse-inverter also may introduce a rich spectrum of EMI effects, whether due to

radiated, induced, or conducted interference. This broadband noise might adversely

affect the operation of safety-critical signal, control and communication systems, such as

use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) differential augmentation receivers for

positive train control (PTC) applications.

EMI from harmonics distortion or rectification “ripple” from switching and power

conditioning equipment may also block or distort the signals that control transit or rail

movement authority, gates, interlockings, and switches, thus causing accidents. EMIrelated stray currents corrosion of abutting metal structures is an important issue,

especially for shared right-of-way and DC-powered transit. Induced fields and stray

currents- if not managed- could lead to sparking, short-outs, breakdown in

communications, explosion of abutting corroded gas pipelines, and water main or sewer

line bursts. If not properly grounded at frequent intervals, induced currents or voltage

might also cause shock to people maintaining and inadvertently touching improperly

grounded accessible gas or water mains, or to persons touching nearly ungrounded fences

or bridge guardrails in the vicinity of the guideway.

Radio frequency interference to and from wayside facilities and operations from

electrified train systems have been studied in considerable detail, particularly in the

Japanese and European electrified railway system. The key source of rail and transit

EMI, namely arcing due to the collapse and reestablishment of the electrical connection

between the pantograph and overhead catenary lines in traditional electrified trains, is not

expected to be present in the Maglev system. However, the TR08 has 3rd rail segments

near stations for levitation power at low speeds, and there are RF microwave antennas

and transceivers along the ROW (at about 40 GHz, but specific frequency is not known)

to detect vehicle location and speed and to transmit diagnostics and vital status data to the

central control station.

The potential safety impacts of the Maglev system alternatives to and from passengers’

electronic devices on-board, and unrelated facilities and systems along the ROW

considered, are expected to be minimal or manageable, particularly given the rapid decay

of the magnetic field and radiation with distance from the Maglev vehicle and guideway.

The types of electrical circuit systems to be evaluated for potential noise interference to

on-board vital safety and Maglev propulsion or levitation systems, regenerative braking,

signaling and controls, or communications and external location and data transmission

systems are:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 108

§ Trackside systems: power equipment, communication equipment, and signaling

and control equipment.

§ Station systems: power equipment, communication equipment, escalator/

elevator, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.

§ Depot systems: power equipment, communication equipment, signaling and

control equipment, and machine tools.

§ Systems adjacent to the right-of-way: power equipment, communication

equipment, navigation equipment, and control equipment.

Proper grounding and shielding, or other EMI prevention and control options shall be

evaluated and emplaced along the Maglev route selected to ensure safe Maglev

operability. Testing will ensure compliance with EMI standards (see Table 3.18-2).

Electromagnetic interference can affect operating systems and facilities along the ROW

via electrical noise in a variety of ways, depending on use of AC or DC propulsion

power, on-board and wayside propulsion power, and signalling frequencies:

§ Communication through telephone lines may be affected by increased noise

disturbances due to the field harmonics from the operation of the Maglev.

Generally, noise interference is directly related to several factors including:

distance from the ROW, earth resistivity, and current loading for normal or

abnormal operating conditions. The magnitude of potential interference in

communications circuits would depend on circuit screening factors and on

powered-rail-to-earth resistance values.

§ Telephone metallic wires are normally electrically shielded, twisted pair wires

in which the shielding is grounded at regular intervals. The induced voltage due

to an electrified rail or Maglev during normal or abnormal conditions may

require additional grounding. Fiberoptics are immune to EMI.

§ Cable television should not be affected by Maglev noise interference because of

its distinct frequency, but site-specific information is still desirable to assess the

need for filtering.

§ Computer networks of nearby businesses also may be subjected to interference

due to Maglev, although it is not expected to significantly affect network

operation.

§ Electronic navigational systems (radars, GPS ground stations and repeaters) are

not expected to be affected by Maglev noise interference because of well

separated frequency domain, but site-specific information is still desirable.

§ Electric transmission power lines and circuits are not expected to be affected by

stray Maglev induced voltages because of their relatively higher voltage. The

power transmission and distribution lines nearby, however, could induce stray

voltage and leakage currents in conductors could affect the Maglev

performance.

§ Voltages can be induced on metallic fences and guardrails situated along the

ROW. Therefore, site-specific information, like length and fence height, should

be assessed to specify proper grounding intervals. Stray currents and eddy

currents must also be prevented to control shortouts.

EMI Human Health and Safety Impacts. There are some potential acute EMI human

health or safety hazards to be considered. These are due to static magnetic fields, or to
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 109

AC electric and magnetic fields, or RF radiation interfering with the normal operation of

medical electronic devices, such as: implanted electronic pacemakers and defibrillators,

insulin pumps, pain controllers and electric wheel-chairs. Also there are magnetic torque

effects from static magnetic fields typical of Maglev on metallic medical prostheses and

implants, such as: braces, hip implants, sutures, and aneurism clips. The FDA Center for

Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) regulates medical devices and requires testing

(e.g., EMI from cell phones) to prevent their malfunction, but older implants are

susceptible to EMI in RF and microwave fields, as are metallic implants or devices for

the disabled to static and AC magnetic fields. Referenced standards (see Section 3.16)

protect susceptible individuals by setting 5 Gauss static magnetic field limits and 1 Gauss

(or 0.1 milliTesla) magnetic and 1 KV/m electric fields at 60 Hz AC. These exposure

safety limits apply to both public and occupational environments. For EMF within the

ELF range of 25-800 Hz, ICNIRP has published frequency dependent limits for workers

and the general public. For RF radiation, there are also frequency dependent public and

occupational exposure safety limits on electric and/or magnetic fields and on

corresponding radiated power density (see FCC, ACGIH, ICNIRP, and IEEE referenced

standards in Section 3.16).

The potential for EMI is more of a concern for Maglev’s safe operation than the impact

from Maglev on nearby airports and military and civilian operations. The potential for a

significant adverse impact to Electromagnetic spectrum from Maglev Deployment can be

prevented and minimized. At the current early planning level of Maglev design, the

inventory of potential electronic emitters and receivers that Maglev could interfere with

has not been completed for any of the alternatives. The potential EMI impacts are a

system safety concern that will be thoroughly evaluated during the site-specific

environmental review if the Maglev Deployment Program proceeds with one or more

alternatives.

4.18.1 Mitigation

“Best Practice” for EMI Control. The FRA’s approach to assessing, and minimizing,

the potential for excessive EMF or EMI exposures due to electrification and high-speed

rail operation along the North East Corridor (NEC) would be followed for the Maglev

Deployment Program, since they explicitly and proactively considered environmental and

potential health effects of EMF to passengers, workers, and to people living and working

along the corridor. The FRA also required Amtrak (the developer and operator) to adopt

best industry practices in preventing and minimizing EMF/EMR exposures and

EMI/EMC problems. FRA required Amtrak to survey EMF levels before and after

system development and operation, and to establish an EMF monitoring program to

ensure compliance with applicable safety standards as well as to determine the need for

any future EMF or EMI mitigation and control program to reduce public exposures or

safety impacts.

An adequate EMI control program can be based on industry best practices and operating

experience, including electrified commuter rail, public transit authorities with DC 3rd rail

and/or AC catenary systems, and Amtrak in the NEC – all of which have encountered and

successfully managed similar issues. AC filtering and cathodic protection for bridges and

steel pipes or structural beams, circuit interrupts, and grounding along pipelines are
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 110

commonly used. Other simple methods are fencing the perimeter and posting warnings

or advisories to restrict public access, limiting work crew exposure times.

As long experience with electrified direct and AC transit and rail systems has shown,

potential EMI problems from Maglev system operation close to sensitive communication

and control facilities (e.g., airports, traffic control centers, military installations, ports,

banks, cell phone and emergency dispatch) can be effectively addressed through several

“best practice” strategies. Different mitigation options exist along the ROW for the

exposed public, such as: posted warnings or fences to restrict public access, buffer zones

or as wide a ROW as possible, restricted zoning and building permits to avoid undue

residential development in the proximity of tracks and along the catenary or power lines,

and enabling workers to manage and monitor their workplace EMF exposures through a

prudent avoidance policy.

Measured or predicted broadband electromagnetic noise (unintended EM radiation) and

the potential for EMI will have to be assessed by reference to relevant standards (see

Table 3.18-2). To minimize unintended Maglev system impacts to nearby facilities (e.g.,

transit systems, military and airport radar and communications, telephone or emergency

communications centers, hospitals, bank ATMs), or if relevant standards are exceeded,

proper prevention and mitigation options will be implemented, consistent with system

design and site specific conditions.

4.18.2 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Maglev Deployment Program would not proceed

and a Maglev system would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no

electromagnetic radio frequency radiation impacts directly from a Maglev system.

However, it is important to consider potential impacts from the No-Action Alternative

that could arise from precluding the Maglev Deployment Program and the potential

benefits of constructing a Maglev system.

The environment has existing EMI producers and more are added each day. Two way

and point-to-point communications, cellular telephones, global positioning systems, and

other emitters are added daily to the radio frequency spectrum. In addition, as new

transportation infrastructure and operating systems are implemented to meet the

increasing travel demand, new sources of EMI would be added to those currently present.

Thus, the electromagnetic environment will continue to be used more intensively and

frequently, increasing the potential of interference from and to transportation systems.

4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Construction of any of the seven proposed Maglev Alternatives may result in localized

short-term air, noise, vibration, water quality, traffic, visual, vegetation, utility and public

safety impacts. With proper planning and sequencing, construction related impacts to

sensitive natural resources such as wetlands, floodplains, and critical habitats, and to

cultural resources should be essentially avoided.

Air Quality. Air quality impacts from construction activities will be temporary and are

primarily associated with the operation of diesel-powered equipment and the generation
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 111

of fugitive dust from excavation and earth moving activities. Air emissions from

construction equipment can be minimized by properly maintaining engines. Fugitive dust

is also generated as trucks travel to and from the construction site along temporary haul

roads, and from the handling of cement, aggregate and other materials. The effect of

fugitive dust would vary depending on local weather conditions during periods of

extensive earth moving activities. Requiring the contractor to implement dust control

measures can substantially minimize fugitive dust impacts, including:

§ Application of water and/or calcium chloride to haul roads.

§ Using haul trucks equipped with dust covers.

§ Minimization of exposed, erosion prone areas to the greatest extent practicable.

§ Stabilization of exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or geotextile

matting as early as possible.

§ Covering or shielding stockpiled materials from the wind.

Noise. Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated

by construction equipment, the location of construction, the sensitivity of adjacent land

uses, and the timing and duration of the noise generating activity. Typically, a

construction project is carried out in stages, each of which generates a certain level of

noise based on the mix of equipment in use at that time. The dominant source of noise

from most construction equipment is the diesel engine. Impact pile driving, pavement

breaking, and blasting are the primary exceptions to this generalization.

It is anticipated that the major noise producing activity associated with Maglev system

construction will be associated with the construction of the guideway support columns,

since they may require the use of an impact pile driver. The installation of the guideway

itself is not anticipated to generate substantial noise. This is because the guideway will

be prefabricated at factories and shipped to the construction site for assembly.

Measures that can be employed to minimize construction noise fall into two general

categories: 1) design considerations; and 2) construction staging and/or sequencing of

operations. Design considerations would include: erection of temporary walls,

stockpiles, or earth berms between the noise source and potential sensitive receptors; the

identification of preferred haul/truck routes that avoid sensitive receptors to the greatest

extent practicable; and locating stationary noise generating equipment at a distance from

noise sensitive receptors. Construction staging should be planned to avoid prolonged

noise generating activities and to minimize nighttime construction activities. Lastly, the

installation of proper mufflers on all diesel power equipment would further reduce noise

impacts from construction activities.

Vibration. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration,

depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction

equipment causes vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with

distance. Buildings in the immediate vicinity of the construction site respond to these

vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels,

low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to

foundations at the highest levels. The construction activities that typically generate the

most severe vibrations are impact pile driving and blasting.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 112

Construction of any of the proposed Maglev Alternative alignments will require

extensive pile driving, particularly associated with construction of the guideway support

columns. This activity may produce vibration levels that could potentially result in slight

damage to the foundations of buildings near the construction site.

Blasting may be required for some areas along each of the Maglev Alternative corridors

where large areas of bedrock need to be removed. For example, the Georgia Alternative

proposes that a tunnel be constructed at a location along the route, which would require

blasting. Like impact pile driving, blasting can create surface vibrations that can

potentially damage buildings immediately adjacent to the construction site. The exact

magnitude of the vibrations generated from blasting activities and impact pile driving

depends upon the structure of the underlying geologic matrix. In order to predict and

minimize impacts, a detailed characterization of the geologic conditions of the selected

Maglev Alternative would be conducted as design advances.

It is possible that some types of heavy vehicles and excavation activities can generate

sufficient ground-borne vibration levels to be perceptible in some buildings located

adjacent to construction site. The vibration levels created by the normal movement of

construction vehicles such as graders, loaders, dozers, scrapers, and dump trucks, are

generally the same order of magnitude as the ground-borne vibration created by heavy

vehicles traveling along nearby streets.

Water Quality. Earthwork, including clearing and grubbing, excavating, grading,

embankment formation, and stockpiling, will be required during the construction of any

of the proposed Maglev Alternative corridors. Exposed soils may result in the potential

for increased site erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby water resources.

Additionally, the construction of some of the guideway support structures and other

system elements may require dewatering of excavation sites. The dewatered water may

contain suspended sediments and other contaminants that could potentially affect

receiving waters.

Given the high potential for water quality impacts associated with Maglev corridor

construction activities, a General Construction Stormwater Permit, a National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES), a Section 404 Water Quality

Certification, and other discharge and water resource permits will likely be required for

any of the alternatives. A Nationwide Permit or Individual Section 404 Permit from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may also be required, depending upon the extent of

wetland impacts associated with project construction. Additionally, a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be prepared and implemented at the

selected site, regardless of its location. The SWPPP will, at a minimum, identify

appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and include a detailed monitoring

program. Notice of the availability of the SWPPP will be conspicuously posted at the

construction site.

Some of the BMPs that may potentially be included in the SWPPP and implemented at

the construction site include, but are not limited to:

§ Conducting earthwork activities during a known dry season.

§ Diverting stormwater that originates off-site away from the construction site.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 113

§ Minimizing the extent and duration of exposed soils by using temporary or

permanent seeding, mulching, or geotextile matting.

§ Proper use of haybales and silt fencing.

§ Constructing appropriately sized temporary sedimentation basins.

§ Establishing a bermed construction equipment storage and refueling area.

§ Establishing a designated equipment cleaning/washing area that is bermed and

includes some measures for the treatment of runoff prior to discharge.

§ Conducting in-stream construction activities during periods of low flow.

§ Using cofferdams for work in the water.

§ Establishing an emergency response spill contingency plan.

Traffic. Construction of any of the Maglev Alternatives could potentially result in

temporary interruptions to local traffic patterns. Maintenance of traffic and construction

staging could be planned and scheduled to minimize traffic delays to the greatest extent

practicable. Appropriate signing could be used to notify motorists of road closures and

detours. Access to local residences and businesses in the vicinity of the construction site

could be maintained to the greatest extent practicable. Temporary disruptions in access

will be directly coordinated with residents and business owners. Residents located along

designated truck haul routes may have to contend with the day-to-day hauling activities

associated with the construction site. However, as construction advances to a new

section of the corridor, haul routes may change and the impact at the former section may

no longer exist. In addition, where available, other modes of transportation like barges

and rail could be used to haul construction related materials and equipment. With the

implementation of a Traffic Maintenance and Protection Plan, the overall construction

impact on traffic and transportation is considered to be minimal for all proposed Maglev

locations. Traffic sequencing is often used to allow safe passing between oncoming

traffic during construction and may be a mitigation alternative.

Visual Aesthetics. Temporary visual impacts attributed to construction activities will be

greatest for those residents immediately adjacent to the construction site. Views of heavy

equipment and material stockpiles will be commonplace for the duration of the

construction activities. Fugitive dust may also impede visual quality during limited

periods.

Vegetation. Construction disturbances and re-vegetation have the potential to introduce

and/or spread noxious and invasive weed species. This has become an issue of major

biological significance nationwide. When alternatives are selected to continue, a site

specific EIS will address this issue in detail.

Utilities. Construction of any of the proposed Maglev Alternative alignments will likely

require utility relocations. Temporary service disruptions may be experienced during the

relocation process. Construction activities will be planned and scheduled to minimize

utility service disruptions to the greatest extent practicable.

Public Safety. Particular attention should be given to the maintenance of public safety

during the duration of construction, given the normal hazards associated with

construction. Public access to construction sites should be limited to the greatest extent

possible. This can be accomplished with temporary fencing, warning signs, or other

safety precautions.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 114

4.20 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE USE OF RESOURCES

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program involves a commitment of a range

of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. The use of land for construction of the

ultimate Maglev facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period

that the land is dedicated to the transportation system. However, if a greater need arises

for use of the land, or the Maglev facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted

to its original or another use, similar to the conversion of defunct rail corridors to

recreational and other alternative uses.

Considerable amounts of fossil fuel and construction materials, such as cement, steel,

aluminum, copper wire, wood and others, will be expended, similar to what would be

required for alternative transportation improvements or facilities oriented to provide for

travel demand in any region of the country. These construction materials are generally

irretrievable. However, they are not in short supply, and their use will not have an

adverse effect upon their continued availability. Once constructed, operation of the

Maglev system is not dependent solely on fossil fuels but on electricity, which can be

generated by means that do not involve the consumption of non-renewable resources.

Construction of the ultimate Maglev system will require a substantial one-time

expenditure of funds, which are not retrievable. Construction will also require substantial

amounts of labor, which, although irreversible, will likely result in short-term stimulation

of the local and regional economy of the selected corridor.

Commitments of resources may involve use of areas that are wetlands, floodplains,

sources of minerals, historic sites, and other natural and cultural resources. While these

commitments may be irretrievable, they are not unusual in the development of a large

transportation project that benefits a large public. The losses incurred will be minimized

or compensated through a variety of measures, including avoidance by design, alignment

shifts, construction techniques, compensatory flood storage, wetland creation or

enhancement, historic documentation, and other suitable and appropriate means.

The acceptability of making a commitment of the aforementioned resources hinges on the

concept that the Maglev system represents a safe, rapid, energy efficient, environmentally

sound, and convenient transportation technology. The benefits of the system are

anticipated to justify and outweigh the commitment of the resources used for its

construction and operation.

4.21 LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The environmental impacts associated with the Maglev Deployment Program will result

in both short and long-term impacts as described in this PEIS. Short-term construction

effects could potentially include localized noise, air and water pollution, and congestion.

However, based on standard environmental specifications and BMPs included as part of

construction contracts, these short-term effects would not have a lasting impact on the

environment. In addition, short-term gains to local economies would occur during

construction due to the additional jobs and purchase of services and supplies.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 115

Long-term alterations to the human and natural environment will occur with the

deployment of an operating Maglev transportation system. However, the Maglev system

would serve as a viable alternative to alleviate the congestion presently encountered

along existing airway and automotive corridors that will worsen with the increasing

demand for commuter travel. Associated socioeconomic and environmental benefits of

the Maglev system could include regional economic development, support to

comprehensive land-use planning emphasizing transit-oriented developments, reduced air

emissions, and comparatively reduced consumption of non-renewable resources such as

fossil fuels. Additionally, the system will offer long-term structural reliability, improved

travel safety and convenience, and energy savings.

Transportation plays a significant role in all aspects of American life. The Maglev

Deployment Program is an advanced transportation technology that, despite the shortterm uses of the environment it requires, will contribute considerably to the maintenance

and enhancement of long-term productivity nationwide.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

4 - 116

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

5 - 1

5 LIST OF PREPARERS

The following is a list of contributors to this Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement.

Federal Railroad Administration

William Fashouer, Environmental

Counsel

Arnold Kupferman, Maglev Program

Manager

David Valenstein, Environmental

Program Manager

John A. Volpe National

 Transportation Systems Center

Paul Bousquet

Aviva Brecher, Ph.D.

Kim Brian

Michael Coltman

Robert Dorer

Julie Ebbighausen

Gregg Fleming

Jeffrey Gordon

Glenn Goulet

Adrian Hellman

Jose Mantilla

Stephanie Markos

Ronald Mauri

Chris Roof

Roger Wayson, Ph.D.

Paul Valihura, Ph.D. - PEIS Manager

EG&G Technical Services

Paul Estey

Marsha Haines

Bob Marville

Ruth Potter

Battelle

Anita Graffeo

MK Centennial

Peter Gyulavary

Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc.

Paul Stanton

Linda Perelli Wright
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

5 - 2

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

Appendices-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Maglev Representatives for Additional Information & Copies of

Environmental Assessments

Appendix B – TEA-21

Appendix C – The Impacts of the Transrapid Magnetic Levitation Train on Human

Health and the Environment

Appendix D – Glossary of Terms

Appendix E – Acronyms, Symbols & Abbreviations

Appendix F – Notice of Intent

Appendix G – List of Recipients of the PEIS

Appendix H – Acoustic Terminology

Appendix I – Flora and Fauna

Appendix J – References

Appendix K – Scoping Letters

Appendix L – Metric/English Conversion Factors

Appendix M – Press Release
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

Appendices-2

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

A - 1

APPENDIX A – MAGLEV REPRESENTATIVES FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION & COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

Below is a list of persons to contact for additional information and copies of the state

environmental assessments.

CALIFORNIA

Albert Perdon

Program Manager

California Maglev Deployment Program

12748 Castleford Lane

Cerritos, CA 90703

Phone: (310) 871-1113

htttp://www.calmaglev.org

FLORIDA

Lin Nathan

Program Manager

Florida Maglev Project

Frederic R. Harris, Inc.

8517 Portage Avenue

Tampa, FL 33647

No website listed at this time

GEORGIA

Robert McCord

Project Manager

Atlanta Regional Commission

40 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: (404) 463-3253

Fax: (404) 463-3254

http://www.acmaglev.com

LOUISIANA

Eric MacDonald

Project Manager

Gulf Coast Maglev Deployment Project

One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1718

Metairie, LA 70001

Phone: (504) 849-2680

Fax: (504) 849-2690

http://www.gulfcoastmaglev.com

MARYLAND

Suhair Alkhatib

Project Manager

Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project

Maryland Mass Transit Administration

6 St. Paul Street

Baltimore, MD 21202-1614

Phone: (410) 767-3751

Fax: (410) 333-0489

http://www.bwmaglev.com

NEVADA

Richann Johnson

Executive Assistant

California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission

400 Las Vegas Blvd. South

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Phone: (702) 229-6551

http://www.ci.lasvegas.nv.us/super_speed_train.htm

PENNSYLVANIA

Bruce W. Ahern

Assistant General Manager of

Business Development Planning

Port Authority of Allegheny County

2235 Beaver Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15233-1080

Phone: (412)237-6121

Fax: (412)237-7237

Http://www.maglevpa.com
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

A - 2

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

B - 1

APPENDIX B – TEA-21

United States Code

Title 23 - Highways

Chapter 3 - General Provisions

§ 322. Magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment program.

Sec. 322. Magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment program

(a) Definitions. - In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Eligible project costs. - The term ''eligible project costs'' -

(A) means the capital cost of the fixed guideway infrastructure of a MAGLEV

project, including land, piers, guideways, propulsion equipment and other

components attached to guideways, power distribution facilities (including

substations), control and communications facilities, access roads, and storage,

repair, and maintenance facilities, but not including costs incurred for a new

station; and

(B) includes the costs of preconstruction planning activities.

(2) Full project costs. - The term ''full project costs'' means the total capital costs of a

MAGLEV project, including eligible project costs and the costs of stations, vehicles, and

equipment.

(3) MAGLEV. - The term ''MAGLEV'' means transportation systems employing magnetic

levitation that would be capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 240 miles per

hour.

(4) Partnership potential. - The term ''partnership potential'' has the meaning given the term in

the commercial feasibility study of high-speed ground transportation conducted under section

1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1978).

(b) Financial Assistance. -

(1) In general. - The Secretary shall make available financial assistance to pay the Federal

share of full project costs of eligible projects selected under this section. Financial assistance

made available under this section and projects assisted with the assistance shall be subject to

section 5333(a) of title 49, United States Code.

(2) Federal share. - The Federal share of full project costs under paragraph (1) shall be not

more than 2/3.

(3) Use of assistance. - Financial assistance provided under paragraph (1) shall be used only

to pay eligible project costs of projects selected under this section.

(c) Solicitation of Applications for Assistance. - Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of

this subsection, the Secretary shall solicit applications from States, or authorities designated by 1 or

more States, for financial assistance authorized by subsection (b) for planning, design, and construction

of eligible MAGLEV projects.

(d) Project Eligibility. - To be eligible to receive financial assistance under subsection (b), a project

shall -
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

B - 2

(1) involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground transportation corridor that exhibit

partnership potential;

(2) require an amount of Federal funds for project financing that will not exceed the sum of -

(A) the amounts made available under subsection (h)(1); and

(B) the amounts made available by States under subsection (h)(3);

(3) result in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing service;

(4) be undertaken through a public and private partnership, with at least 1/3 of full project

costs paid using non-Federal funds;

(5) satisfy applicable statewide and metropolitan planning requirements;

(6) be approved by the Secretary based on an application submitted to the Secretary by a State

or authority designated by 1 or more States;

(7) to the extent that non-United States MAGLEV technology is used within the United

States, be carried out as a technology transfer project; and

(8) be carried out using materials at least 70 percent of which are manufactured in the United

States.

(e) Project Selection Criteria. - Prior to soliciting applications, the Secretary shall establish criteria for

selecting which eligible projects under subsection (d) will receive financial assistance under subsection

(b). The criteria shall include the extent to which -

(1) a project is nationally significant, including the extent to which the project will

demonstrate the feasibility of deployment of MAGLEV technology throughout the United

States;

(2) timely implementation of the project will reduce congestion in other modes of

transportation and reduce the need for additional highway or airport construction;

(3) States, regions, and localities financially contribute to the project;

(4) implementation of the project will create new jobs in traditional and emerging industries;

(5) the project will augment MAGLEV networks identified as having partnership potential;

(6) financial assistance would foster public and private partnerships for infrastructure

development and attract private debt or equity investment;

(7) financial assistance would foster the timely implementation of a project; and

(8) life-cycle costs in design and engineering are considered and enhanced.

(f) Project Selection. -

(1) Preconstruction planning activities. - Not later than 90 days after a deadline established by

the Secretary for the receipt of applications, the Secretary shall evaluate the eligible projects

in accordance with the selection criteria and select 1 or more eligible projects to receive

financial assistance for preconstruction planning activities, including -

(A) preparation of such feasibility studies, major investment studies, and

environmental impact statements and assessments as are required under State law;
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

B - 3

(B) pricing of the final design, engineering, and construction activities proposed to

be assisted under paragraph (2); and (C) such other activities as are necessary to

provide the Secretary with sufficient information to evaluate whether a project

should receive financial assistance for final design, engineering, and construction

activities under paragraph (2).

(2) Final design, engineering, and construction activities. - After completion of

preconstruction planning activities for all projects assisted under paragraph (1), the Secretary

shall select 1 of the projects to receive financial assistance for final design, engineering, and

construction activities.

(g) Joint Ventures. - A project undertaken by a joint venture of United States and non-United States

persons (including a project involving the deployment of non-United States MAGLEV technology in

the United States) shall be eligible for financial assistance under this section if the project is eligible

under subsection (d) and selected under subsection (f).

(h) Funding. -

(1) In general. -

(A) Contract authority; authorization of appropriations. -

(i) In general. - There is authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust

Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section

$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and

$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

(ii) Contract authority. - Funds authorized by this subparagraph shall be

available for obligation in the same manner as if the funds were apportioned

under chapter 1, except that -

(I) the Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this

section shall be determined in accordance with subsection (b); and

(II) the availability of the funds shall be determined in accordance with

paragraph (2).

(B) Noncontract authority authorization of appropriations. -

(i) In general. - There are authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust

Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section (other than

subsection (i)) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001,

$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

(ii) Availability. - Notwithstanding section 118(a), funds made available under

clause (i) shall not be available in advance of an annual appropriation.

(2) Availability of funds. - Funds made available under paragraph (1) shall remain available

until expended.

(3) Other federal funds. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made available to

a State to carry out the surface transportation program under section 133 and the congestion

mitigation and air quality improvement program under section 149 may be used by the State

to pay a portion of the full project costs of an eligible project selected under this section,

without requirement for non-Federal funds.

(4) Other assistance. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an eligible project selected

under this section shall be eligible for other forms of financial assistance provided under this
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

B - 4

title and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, including loans, loan guarantees,

and lines of credit.

(i) Low-Speed Project. -

(1) In general. - Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, of the funds made

available by subsection (h)(1)(A) to carry out this section, $5,000,000 shall be made available

to the Secretary to make grants for the research and development of low-speed

superconductivity magnetic levitation technology for public transportation purposes in urban

areas to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation, and safety benefits.

(2) Noncontract authority authorization of appropriations. -

(A) In general. - There are authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust

Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection such sums as

are necessary for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

(B) Availability. - Notwithstanding section 118(a), funds made available under

subparagraph (A) -

(i) shall not be available in advance of an annual appropriation; and

(ii) shall remain available until expended.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 1

APPENDIX C

THE IMPACTS OF THE TRANSRAPID

MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRAIN ON HUMAN

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

By Kilpatrick Stockton LLP

For Transrapid International-USA

May 2000
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 2

 

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................C-5

A. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................C-5

B. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS........................................................................................................................C-5

C. NOISE...................................................................................................................................................................C-6

D. VIBRATIONS......................................................................................................................................................C-6

E. AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................................................................C-7

F. SAFETY...............................................................................................................................................................C-8

G. INDIRECT HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS............................................................................................C-8

H. THE CONVENIENCE AND COMFORT OF TRANSRAPID .......................................................................C-8

I. THE LAND USE IMPACTS..............................................................................................................................C9

J. IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND PLANTS....................................................................................................C-10

K. ENERGY CONSUMPTION.............................................................................................................................C-10

L. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................C-10

I. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................C-11

II. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH FROM EXPOSURE TO

TRANSRAPID’S ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS........................................................................C-13

A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................C-13

B. WHAT IS EMF?..............................................................................................................................................C-14

C. THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY EMF...............................C-15

D. EMF FROM THE TR07.................................................................................................................................C-18

E. SUMMARY OF STUDIES RELATING TR07 EMF EXPOSURES TO HUMAN HEALTH

. EFFECTS.........................................................................................................................................................C-22

III. NOISE.......................................................................................................................................................C-22

A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................C-22

B. NOISE AND TRANSRAPID............................................................................................................................C-24

IV. VIBRATIONS.......................................................................................................................................C-26

V. AIR POLLUTION...................................................................................................................................C-27

A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................C-27

B. POLLUTANTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................................................C-27

C. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................C-28

D. GREENHOUSE GASSES..................................................................................................................................C-29

E. AIR EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSRAPID SYSTEM..........................................C-30

F. DIRECT AIR EMISSIONS FROM TRANSRAPID ......................................................................................C-31

G. INDIRECT AIR EMISSIONS FROM TRANSRAPID ..................................................................................C-31

VI. SAFETY...................................................................................................................................................C-34

A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................C-34

B. SAFE HOVERING............................................................................................................................................C-35

C. SAFE EVACUATION ......................................................................................................................................C-35

D. SAFE SPEED CONTROL................................................................................................................................C-35

E. NEAR IMPOSSIBILITY OF “DERAILMENT”............................................................................................C-36
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 4

F. COLLISION AVOIDANCE..............................................................................................................................C-36

G. EMERGENCY BRAKING...............................................................................................................................C-37

H. FIRE SAFETY...................................................................................................................................................C-37

I. INDIRECT HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS..........................................................................................C-37

VII. CONVENIENCE AND COMFORT.........................................................................................C-38

A. PASSENGER COMFORT................................................................................................................................C-38

B. WEATHER INDEPENDENCE ........................................................................................................................C-39

C. DECREASED TRAVEL TIME........................................................................................................................C-39

VIII. LAND USE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................C-39

A. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING AND MITIGATING ADVERSE

LAND USE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................................C-39

B. THE DIRECT LAND USE IMPACTS OF TRANSRAPID..........................................................................C-40

C. INDIRECT IMPACTS......................................................................................................................................C-42

IX. IMPACTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA....................................................................................C-43

X. ENERGY CONSUMPTION..........................................................................................................C-44

XI. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................C-45
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 5

THE IMPACTS OF THE TRANSRAPID MAGNETIC LEVITATION

TRAIN ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Introduction

Maglev (for “magnetic levitation”) represents a dramatic innovation in surface

transportation. Instead of riding on wheels, maglev trains float down guideways on

magnets. The train’s levitating force is created by an attractive pull between conventional

electromagnets on the train and an iron rail located in the guideway on which the train

travels. Electromagnets also provide the train’s lateral guidance, propulsion and braking

forces.

In 1990, the federal government launched the National Maglev Initiative (NMI) to

assess the potential for maglev trains to service this country’s intercity transportation

needs. This initiative, a joint project of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the

U.S. Army’s Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy, included evaluations of

the engineering, environmental, safety and economic aspects of existing and proposed

maglev systems. The final report on this initiative (NMI Report) was a ringing

endorsement of the maglev concept.

A German consortium known as Transrapid International (TRI) has developed a

fully-operational maglev train after 30 years of research and development and 15 years of

full-scale testing at a test track in Emsland, Germany. TRI’s U.S. subsidiary, Transrapid

International–USA (TRI-USA), is promoting the development of maglev transportation

systems in this country utilizing the maglev technology developed by TRI.

As with any new type of technology, the introduction of maglev trains in the U.S.

has raised questions about the system’s potential effects on the environment. TRI-USA

asked Kilpatrick Stockton LLP to conduct a comprehensive survey of research to date on

the environmental and safety aspects of the Transrapid maglev technology. This paper

presents the results of that survey.

B. Electromagnetic Fields

Proposals to introduce maglev trains into the U.S. transportation system come at

a time when there is considerable debate over the possible health risks associated with

electromagnetic fields (EMF). Because maglev train systems are known to generate a

low intensity, but highly complex EMF, a considerable amount of research has focused

on whether these fields pose potential risks to human health. Many of these studies have

been funded by the FRA.

One such study was a comprehensive review of prior EMF research. It

concluded that the intensity of EMF associated with Transrapid was no higher, either on a

peak field or average field basis, than those of other rail technologies. The study’s

authors concluded that maglev technology, although a unique exposure environment,

does not present any unusual EMF exposures to passengers or crew.

The FRA also funded a research team to travel to Germany to measure,

characterize, and analyze EMF emissions from the Transrapid system. The resulting

report describes the magnetic field measurements conducted on board and in the vicinity
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 6

of the train, the guideway, the passenger station, control center, and the power supply

facilities at TRI’s test facility in Emsland, Germany. The study concluded that the

magnetic fields associated with Transrapid, while unique among fields measured

elsewhere in the environment, have not been shown to produce adverse biological

effects in living organisms.

Another study commissioned by the FRA addressed the potential effects of those

EMF characteristics that appear unique to maglev systems: variability of intensity and

frequency over time. This study investigated the biological effects in human cells and

rats from exposures to an EMF environment similar to that associated with Transrapid.

Based on the cell research, the study concluded that maglev EMF exposure at up to

seven times the intensity produced by Transrapid has no deleterious effect on the growth

or differentiation of the human cells studied.

The rat experiments looked at the effect of Transrapid-type EMF on changes in

pineal melatonin levels—thought to be an important indicator of potentially carcinogenic

changes in higher animals. The study concluded that EMF similar to that produced by

Transrapid had no statistically significant influence on melatonin levels.

In sum, although the low-energy magnetic fields associated with Transrapid are

highly complex and are unlike magnetic fields generated by other man-made devices,

there is no evidence that such fields produce adverse biological effects.

C. Noise

The noise measurements of the Transrapid were compared to those generated

by other types of trains. These comparisons showed that at all operational speeds,

Transrapid was quieter than every type of rail train tested, including a normal freight train,

a regional express train, an intercity train, and the high-speed German ICE and the

French TGV trains.

In 1998, the FRA issued guidelines for use in predicting noise levels from

Transrapid trains. Only at the highest anticipated speeds (250-300 mph) and at relatively

close distances to the most noise-sensitive areas (residential housing, schools, hotels,

churches and parks) would maglev noises be in the “severe impact” category. By

employing a combination of physical sound barriers, modification of speed profiles, and

locating guideways away from such areas, planners of Transrapid systems should be

able to readily accommodate even the most noise-sensitive communities.

D. Vibrations

The effect of vibrations from passing Transrapid trains has also been extensively

evaluated. Even though a Transrapid train does not literally touch the guideway, the

dynamic loads of the train on the guideway cause perceptible ground-borne vibrations.

Vibrations from normal Transrapid operation, however, are not expected to be significant.

TRI estimates that vibrations would not be noticeable, even at 250 mph, beyond 200 feet

from the guideway. At 155 mph, this “no-perception” distance drops to 115 feet. It is

expected that in most areas, the guideway can be aligned to assure that the train avoids

passing within the “perception” distance of vibration-sensitive buildings or equipment.

E. Air Quality

Air emissions associated with Transrapid include the following:
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

'LUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQVIURPWKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI 7UDQVUDSLG  7KHVH HPLVVLRQV

FRQVLVWLQJSULPDULO\RIVKRUWWHUPHPLVVLRQVRISDUWLFXODWHVDQGQLWURJHQR[LGHVVKRXOG

EHLQVLJQLILFDQWFRPSDUHGWRWKHRWKHUDLUHPLVVLRQVGLVFXVVHGLQWKLVSDSHU

'LUHFW DLU HPLVVLRQVIURPWKH RSHUDWLRQ RI7UDQVUDSLG7KHUHZLOO EH QR VXFK

HPLVVLRQVIURPWKHWUDLQLWVHOIDQGUHODWLYHO\PLQLPDOHPLVVLRQVIURPWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKH

VWDWLRQV

,QGLUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQVUHGXFWLRQVIURPKLJKZD\YHKLFOHVDQGDLUFUDIWWKDWPD\EH

GLVSODFHGE\WKHPDJOHYV\VWHP7KHPRVWVLJQLILFDQWRIWKHVHLQFOXGHYRODWLOHRUJDQLF

FRPSRXQGVQLWURJHQR[LGHV VXOIXUGLR[LGHSDUWLFXODWHV FDUERQPRQR[LGHDQG FDUERQ

GLR[LGH

 ,QGLUHFW DLU HPLVVLRQ LQFUHDVHV GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ WKH VRXUFHV RI HOHFWULFLW\

VHOHFWHGWRSRZHUWKH7UDQVUDSLGV\VWHP7KHQDWXUHDQGDPRXQWRIVXFKHPLVVLRQVZLOO

YDU\ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SRZHUSURGXFLQJ VRXUFHV XWLOL]HG EXW PD\ LQFOXGH YRODWLOH

RUJDQLFFRPSRXQGVQLWURJHQR[LGHVVXOIXUGLR[LGHSDUWLFXODWHVFDUERQPRQR[LGHDQG

FDUERQGLR[LGH

7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV RQ DLU TXDOLW\ IURP WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI 7UDQVUDSLG

V\VWHPVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV FDQEHHVWLPDWHGE\ FRPSDULQJWKHDQWLFLSDWHGHPLVVLRQ

UHGXFWLRQV IURP PDJOHY¶V GLVSODFHPHQW RI DLU DQG KLJKZD\ WUDYHO ZLWK WKH DQWLFLSDWHG

HPLVVLRQV LQFUHDVHV IURP WKH JHQHUDWLRQ RI HOHFWULFLW\ QHHGHG WR SRZHU WKH PDJOHY

WUDLQV

7KH10,5HSRUWORRNHGDWWUDQVSRUWDWLRQFRUULGRUVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZKHUH

PDJOHY V\VWHPV DSSHDU WR EH IHDVLEOH  7KH UHSRUW IRXQG WKDW WKH GLVSODFHPHQW RI DLU

WUDYHOLQWKHGLVWDQFHUDQJHRIPLOHVSURPLVHVWRUHVXOWLQVLJQLILFDQWGHFUHDVHV

LQIXHOFRQVXPSWLRQ$FFRUGLQJWRWKH10,5HSRUWPDJOHYFDQRIIHUWULSWLPHVZLWKLQWKLV

GLVWDQFH UDQJH WKDW DUH FRPSHWLWLYH ZLWK DLU WUDYHO IRU D VPDOO IUDFWLRQ RI WKH HQHUJ\

FRQVXPHGE\DQDLUFUDIWDVPHDVXUHLQWHUPVRIHQHUJ\FRQVXPHGIRUSDVVHQJHUPLOH

WUDYHOHG

7KHRSHUDWLRQRIDQHZ7UDQVUDSLGV\VWHPZLOOUHTXLUHWKHJHQHUDWLRQRIHOHFWULFLW\

SULPDULO\IRUWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHWUDLQLWVHOIEXWDOVRWRDOHVVHUH[WHQWIRUWKHRSHUDWLRQ

RI WKH DVVRFLDWHG VWDWLRQV DQG RWKHU HTXLSPHQW  7KH 10, 5HSRUW FRQFOXGHG WKDW E\

VXEVWLWXWLQJPDJOHYYHKLFOHVIRUDLUFUDIWDQGWRDOHVVHUGHJUHHIRUKLJKZD\YHKLFOHVDQG

GLHVHO SRZHUHG WUDLQV HPLVVLRQV IURP PDQ\ PRELOH VRXUFHV ZRXOG EH UHSODFHG E\

HPLVVLRQVIURP HOHFWULFDO SRZHU SODQWV 7KH DXWKRUV FRQFOXGHGWKDW H[FHSWIRU VXOIXU

GLR[LGH HPLVVLRQV WKHUH ZRXOG EH VL]DEOH UHGXFWLRQV LQ DOO FDWHJRULHV RI DLU SROOXWDQWV

IURPWKHLQWURGXFWLRQRIPDJOHY

7KHLQFUHDVHLQVXOIXUGLR[LGHHPLVVLRQVSURMHFWHGLQWKH10,5HSRUWZDVEDVHG

RQDQDVVXPSWLRQWKDWPXFKRIWKHHOHFWULFLW\IRUWKHQHZPDJOHYWUDLQVZRXOGFRPHIURP

WKH EXUQLQJ RI IRVVLO IXHOV SDUWLFXODUO\ FRDO  +RZHYHU WKLV PD\ QR ORQJHU EH D YDOLG

DVVXPSWLRQLQOLJKWRIWKHUDSLGGHUHJXODWLRQRIWKHSRZHUJHQHUDWLQJLQGXVWU\LQWKH8QLWHG

6WDWHV

) 6DIHW\

7UDQVUDSLG¶V VDIHW\ IHDWXUHV KDYH EHHQ H[WHQVLYHO\ WHVWHG DW IXOOVFDOH DW 75,¶V

WHVWWUDFN LQ(PVODQG*HUPDQ\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJWKDW ZLWK UHVSHFWWR DFFLGHQWDO LQMXULHV

DQGIDWDOLWLHV7UDQVUDSLGLVOLNHO\WREHWKHVDIHVWIRUPRIPHFKDQL]HGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQ

KLVWRU\
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 8

An essential component of Transrapid’s safety-related design is the “safe hover”

requirement that a train must be able, under any circumstance, to come to a stop at a

location on the guideway where passengers can be safely evacuated. The Transrapid

has built-in design characteristics to assure that such safe-stopping zones are always

accessible to passengers.

Transrapids design is able to meet a new “safe hover” safety standard by

assuring there will be no unexpected loss of either the levitation or guidance system.

Each magnet on Transrapid has an individual control system with redundant gap sensors

to assure that the required distance between the train and the guideway is maintained at

all times. 

Even if the external source of electricity fails while the train is in operation, onboard batteries will supply emergency power to maintain the levitation and guidance

systems. In such an emergency, braking will also be carried out by the on-board

batteries, which will slow the train down and allow it to delevitate, lower onto mechanical

skids, and glide to a stop.

Unlike railway systems, it is virtually impossible for a Transrapid train to “derail”

(i.e. to separate from an intact guideway) because the bottom of the train wraps around

the guideway. Also unlike most other railway systems, the guideway of the Transrapid

will be fully grade-separated and will have no intersections with highways or railroads.

The system will typically be built using elevated guideways to allow other traffic routes,

such as highways and railroad tracks, to pass under the guideway. As a result, collisions

with other types of vehicles will not occur.

G. Indirect Health and Safety Impacts

To the extent Transrapid systems divert passengers from highway travel, the

probability that passengers will suffer accidental death or injury during their travels will be

greatly reduced.

As noted above, the likelihood of Transrapid’s actually causing a highway or

railway accident is virtually non-existent because the system will be elevated as

necessary to avoid all road and railroad track intersections.

Transrapid systems should result in improvements in air and highway system

performance by diverting passengers from automobiles and aircraft. With the

introduction of high-speed systems like Transrapid in a number of the country’s middistance intercity corridors, highway and airport congestion can be significantly reduced.

The reduction in societal stress from the decrease in traffic congestion and travel delays

would be an important benefit of Transrapid.

H. The Convenience and Comfort of Transrapid

The operation of Transrapid trains will be optimized during turns and gradeclimbing to avoid any inconvenience to passengers, such that Transrapid passengers will

not be required to wear seatbelts and may walk around in the passenger compartment of

the train at any time.

Transrapid trains have also been designed to assure that passengers are not

startled or made uncomfortable by rapid pressure changes when two trains pass one

another or when a train enters a tunnel. Passenger compartments of Transrapid trains

employ state-of-the-art technology to assure pressure-tightness of vehicle bodies.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 9

Transrapid passengers will be able to travel in complete safety regardless of the

weather. Because of its contactless technology, Transrapid will remain safe and

operational in poor weather and at high and low temperatures. Consequently, Transrapid

systems should be more resistant to weather delays that frequently plague airways,

highways, and some forms of conventional railway systems.

I. Land Use Impacts

The potential effects on land use of a new Transrapid system must be assessed

in the context of federal, state and local laws designed to protect land uses that are

valued by the public. If such values are threatened with irreversible harm, these laws will

require modification or relocation of the proposed Transrapid system to avoid or minimize

such impacts. Transrapid offers more flexibility than other surface transportation

systems to accommodate valued land uses.

Land area needs of Transrapid systems are relatively modest because the

vehicles are quite narrow. Moreover, Transrapid guideways can either be elevated or

constructed at grade, giving designers the flexibility to avoid interference with existing

land use patterns by constructing the guideways above the existing terrain. Areas under

the guideways can continue to support agriculture, flood plain drainage, wetlands and

wildlife habitats.

Maglev systems consume less land than any other form of motorized transport.

The elevated double-track guideway of Transrapid spans about 90 feet between

supports. The area required for each support is about 900 square feet, resulting in an

effective land consumption for an elevated Transrapid system that is much less than the

land use requirements for either a new highway or a conventional railroad system. Even

Transrapid guideways constructed at grade occupy less land than other transport

modes.

Another important advantage of Transrapid, whether or not the guideway is

elevated, is the minimal impact of the train on local hydrology. The natural flow of surface

water need not be diverted or interrupted by either construction or operation of

Transrapid--in contrast to roads and conventional railroad tracks.

Like conventional railway stations, Transrapid stations can serve as hubs for new

urban development. To optimize the rapid travel times and benefits of Transrapid,

stations located along a typical travel corridor will be relatively few and far between.

Consequently, unlike highways that often promote sprawl development along the entire

length of a new highway system (and especially at major intersections), Transrapid

stations can be effectively utilized by urban planners to attract concentrated residential

and commercial development around stations that are relatively distant from one another.

In short, a Transrapid system can be expected to promote concentrated development at

relatively few points of access, particularly in the hands of far-sighted community

planners.

J. Impacts on Wildlife and Plants

Much of the above discussion of the direct and indirect land use impacts of

Transrapid systems applies as well to the effects of this new technology on plants and

wildlife. Corridors traversed by Transrapid likely will include a variety of wildlife habitants

including grassland, woodlands, lakes and ponds, rivers and streams and agricultural
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 10

lands. In most cases, the effects of a new Transrapid system on these habitats, and the

wildlife that occupy them, will be minor and temporary.

Natural drainage patterns need not be interrupted by Transrapid guideways, even

for at-grade systems. Where necessary, Transrapid guideways can be elevated to

further minimize the impact on sensitive habitat. Disruptions during construction across

grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural lands will be temporary, with habitat returning to a

normal vegetative state, even within corridors and under guideways, after construction is

completed. With elevated maglev systems, wildlife can pass from one side of the

guideway to the other relatively undisturbed, highlighting a major advantage of maglev

over most highways and conventional railroads.

K. Energy Consumption

Transportation accounts for at least two-thirds of the oil consumed in the U.S.

The country’s appetite for oil is primarily due to the fact that when Americans travel they

prefer, or are compelled, to travel in automobiles. Nearly 70% of the projected increase

in petroleum consumption in this country by the year 2015 will be related to

transportation, and the lion’s share of that increase will be due to increased automobile

use.

As a matter of sound public policy, any new transportation system that reduces

our dependence on petroleum, and on fossil fuels in general, should be encouraged.

Transrapid is by no means a complete solution to our over-dependence on fossil-fuelbased travel, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Transrapid systems will be virtually independent of petroleum-based fuels, so that

maglev networks will help lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. As noted previously,

Transrapid can offer trip times far shorter than highway travel, and competitive with

middle-distance air travel, for a small fraction of the energy consumed by automobiles

and aircraft.

L. Conclusion

Transrapid maglev trains promise to be the “green” transportation systems of the

future. Indeed, this innovative technology should be safer, more convenient, less

polluting, less disruptive of existing land uses, and “friendlier” to the natural environment

than any other system of mechanized transport yet developed.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 11

I. BACKGROUND

In 1991, a committee of 19 experts assembled by the National Research Council

issued a special report on the potential for high-speed ground transportation (HSGT)

technologies to meet the demand for transportation service in high-density travel

corridors in the U.S. (hereinafter “NRC Report”).1 The NRC Report made the following

observation:

Intercity travel in the United States continues to grow, but the

transportation infrastructure to support this growth is becoming more

difficult to provide. Increasing highway capacity and building new

airports can cause pollution and environmental disruption, create noise,

and encourage greater use of valuable energy resources. Moreover,

funding improvements to this infrastructure systems, which require

public subsidies, strain already stretched budgets.

In response to the dramatic increase in highway and airport congestion over the

past decade many public officials have pushed to expand or build new airports and

highways in crowded intercity travel corridors. However, not only are such construction

projects becoming increasingly costly, they are not always the solution to the congestion

problem. In fact, such projects often make congestion worse.

A recent study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), for example,

confirmed what many suspected: more often than not, building new highways often

substantially increases the number of vehicles on those highways. The STPP found that

every 10 percent increase in the size of a highway network results in a 5.3 percent

increase in the amount of driving-over and above any increase from population growth or

other factors.2 In a press release accompanying this report, STPP Executive Director

Roy Kienitz stated that “the most common response to congestion, road building, is just

making things worse . . . we don’t need more of the same: we need new solutions that

give people a way to avoid traffic jams.”3

The same phenomenon has been observed with respect to airports. As they

have been expanded to a handle more traffic, many airports have become even more

congested. In 1987, 21 major airports experienced substantial flight delays. Although

billions of dollars have been spent since then on airport expansion, this year up to 40

major airports are expected to experience substantial delays.4

It is clear that if something is to be done about the increasing congestion and

delay associated with air and highway travel, the U.S. must look to other forms of

transportation. High-speed trains, and especially magnetically levitated (maglev) trains,

are once again being explored as a partial solution to our crowded highways and airports.

Historically, the U.S. government’s interest in high-speed ground transportation

has waxed and waned. The government’s earliest involvement with high-speed (over

125 mph) rail was authorized by the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.

That law authorized the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to begin a research and

demonstration program in high speed rail travel involving the Metroliner and Turbo Train.

This program demonstrated that high-speed trains between Boston and Washington

would attract passengers in significant numbers. In the 1970s, the FRA’s research
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 12

program funded studies of early maglev trains, with the goal of selecting the most

promising one for a demonstration project. By 1974, this research resulted in a prototype

research vehicle powered by a linear induction motor that set a speed record of 255 mph.

However, in 1976 funding for the FRA research program was canceled before a full-scale

demonstration model could be developed.

In 1990, after a decade in which there was little interest in maglev trains in this

country, the federal government announced a National Maglev Initiative (NMI) to assess

the potential for maglev transportation to service intercity transportation needs. This

initiative, a joint project of the FRA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the

Department of Energy, had the lofty goal of promoting the improvement in intercity travel

in the 21st century by the development and implementation of commercially viable maglev

trains. The project included evaluations of the engineering, environmental, safety and

economic aspects of maglev systems. The final report on the NMI (NMI Report)5 was a

ringing endorsement of the maglev concept. The study’s authors recommended a

federally-supported effort to promote the development of an American version of this

promising new technology.

At about the same time that the NMI rekindled interest in maglev, Congress

passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act6 authorizing $725 million to

demonstrate high-speed maglev systems. However, none of the maglev research

money was appropriated by Congress and interest in maglev in this country again

flagged in the mid-1990s.

Meanwhile, research on maglev technology continued in Japan and Germany,

with both countries setting up demonstration projects and spending billions of dollars on

maglev research. A German consortium known as Transrapid International (TRI) has

now developed a fully-operation maglev train after 30 years of research and development.

TRI’s U.S. subsidiary, Transrapid International-USA (TRI-USA), is promoting the

development of maglev transportation systems in the United States utilizing the maglev

technology developed by TRI. TRI’s maglev train has gone through several iterations,

with the most recent version, the TR08, now ready for commercial production. A similar

earlier version, the TR07, has been extensively tested in Germany and is the subject of

much of the scientific research cited in this paper. The TR07 and TR08 versions of the

maglev train are collectively referred to below as “Transrapid.”

Transrapid is one of two basic types of maglev trains. The levitating force for

Transrapid is created by attraction between conventional electromagnets on the train and

in an iron rail located in the guideway on which the train travels. The alternative

approach, based on an electrodynamic “repulsive” system, is still under development in

Japan. In both systems, the vehicle’s electromagnets react with the guideway to lift the

maglev train and propel it down the guideway.

The contactless technology of the maglev train is revolutionary in that it

represents the first high-speed ground transportation system that does not operate on

wheels-the mechanism relied on by the human race as a means of transport for

thousands of years.

In June 1998 Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21), one of the major components of which is a maglev technology deployment
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 13

program.7 TEA-21 authorized $1.01 billion for the program, which is intended to result in

the first segment of a maglev-serviced transportation corridor in the United States. In

May 1999, as part of the maglev deployment program, the FRA named seven U.S.

transportation corridors as finalists for future maglev development.

As with any new technology, the introduction of maglev trains in the U.S. has

raised questions about the system’s potential environmental impacts. TRI-USA asked

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP to survey the research conducted to date on the environmental

and safety aspects of this new technology. Much of this research was sponsored by the

U.S. government, the German government (in the process of certifying Transrapid as

safe for commercial application in Germany), and by TRI itself, based on its years of

studying the operation of the system at its full-scale test track in Emsland, Germany.

This paper presents the results of our review of these studies.

II. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH FROM EXPOSURE TO

TRANSRAPID’S ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

A. Introduction

Proposals to introduce maglev trains like Transrapid into the U.S. transportation

system come at a time when there is considerable debate over the possible heath risks

posed by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Because Transrapid is known to generate a

low intensity but highly complicated EMF, a considerable amount of research has

focused on the potential risk of these fields to human health.

Apprehension over the health effects associated with EMFs in the United States

began in the early 1970s as the result of the increasing use of extra high voltage

transmission lines. This concern grew after the publication of a study in 1979 purporting

to link the proximity of homes to electrical transmission and distribution lines with an

increased incidence of childhood leukemia.8

Since then there have been numerous other studies of the potential health effects

of human exposures to various sources of EMF. To date, the results of this research are

inconclusive. Some studies have associated EMF with human health risks. Others have

found associations with biological effects, though not harmful ones, and others have

found no association with biological effects, harmful or otherwise.

EMF-generating electrically powered trains have been commonplace in this

country for nearly a century. Although the strength of the electrical and magnetic fields

generated by the Transrapid is no greater than that associated with electrified rail

systems, the variability and complexity of the Transrapid’s EMF are uncommon (as

discussed below). Accordingly, the potential health risk presented by the magnetic fields

associated with Transrapid systems is a legitimate area of inquiry.

What criticism there has been to date regarding the potential environmental and

safety aspects of Transrapid has emphasized the potentially harmful effects of the EMF

generated by maglev systems. The Green Party in Germany, for example, has

emphasized uncertainties regarding those biological effects as one of that the Party’s

primary objections to the commercial deployment of Transrapid in that country.9

EMF generated by Transrapid is by far the most comprehensively studied

environmental effect of this new technology. Because of the substantial public interest in
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 14

this topic–and given its complexity–we devote a considerable portion of this paper to a

discussion of what is known about potential biological effects of Transrapid-generated

EMF.

B. What is EMF?

Beginning in the seventeenth century, scientists began to theorize that

magnetism, and a more recently investigated phenomenon known as electricity, were

components of the same fundamental force of nature. At first it was noted that iron could

be magnetized by putting it near a wire carrying electricity. It was then shown that the

converse was true: a moving magnet could generate an electric current through a nearby

wire. It is now known that every magnetic force is associated with a corresponding

electrical force and vice versa. This is known as the electromagnetic force, and the

three-dimensional space over which this force acts is known as the electromagnetic

field, or EMF. Stated another way, every EMF has both magnetic field and electrical field

components.

The electrical field components of the type of low energy EMF associated with

Transrapid is easily shielded and has not been associated with adverse biological

effects. In contrast, the magnetic field component of low energy EMF has been

associated with biological effects and is not as easily shielded. Consequently, it is the

magnetic field component of low energy EMF that has been of greatest interest to

researchers.

The quantity commonly used to characterize the strength of magnetic fields in

studies of low energy EMF on human health is the intensity of the magnetic field. It is

often measured in milligauss (mG) units.

Because the intensity of a given magnetic field can vary over time, this raises the

question of how best to measure the EMF of a complex system like Transrapid. For

example, one can measure the intensity of EMF at any given point in time, known as the

“spot intensity,” or one can calculate the average intensity over a fixed period of time,

known as the “time weighted average” (TWA) intensity. Another characteristic of a

magnetic field that may be of interest is the maximum intensity that occurs over a given

period of time; this is known as the “peak intensity.” Given these different ways of

measuring magnetic field intensities, it is important when comparing the “strengths” or

“intensities” of different magnetic fields to clarify which of these characteristics are being

compared.

In addition to intensity, another important characteristic of a magnetic field is its

frequency. Low energy electromagnetic forces can be viewed as energy traveling in

waves. The frequency of electromagnetic waves is the measure of how fast a single

wave moves past a point in space in one second. Its unit of measurement is the hertz

(Hz). Stated as an equation, 1 Hz = 1 cycle/second.

Energy associated with electromagnetic fields is proportional to the frequency of

the electromagnetic waves: the higher the frequency, the greater the energy. EMFs of

the type generated by a maglev train (or any other type of electric-powered machine)

have very low frequencies and therefore are associated with very low energy levels. EMF

with frequencies in the range of zero to 3000 Hz are commonly referred to as extremely

low frequency EMF or “ELF-EMF.” The EMFs from Transrapid and other man-made

devices fall mainly within this ELF range, as does the natural magnetic force of the earth.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 15

Another important characteristic of some EMFs is known as intermittency. This

is a way to describe the variability in the frequency of the EMF. For example, because

the frequency of a magnetic field from a U.S. household appliance remains fairly constant

(at 60 Hz), it is said to have low intermittency. Intermittency is of interest in this paper

because the EMF of the Transrapid, unlike most forms of electrical rail transport, is

known to have a high degree of intermittency.

Some type of EMFs are also characterized as having “transients.” Transients

can occur when an EMF source suddenly switches from one state to another, such as

occurs when an electrical appliance is turned on and off. Transients can be visualized

as very short-lived, high frequency (from 10,000 Hz to several million Hz)

electromagnetic wave “spikes.” Transients are also one of the characteristics

associated with the EMF of Transrapid.

Because the forces of EMF act in three dimensions and also vary over time, it is it

is all but impossible to characterize completely the EMF environment over a large spatial

area or over a significant timeframe. This complexity also makes it difficult to describe

the EMF of a given system without resorting to three-dimensional schematics and

mathematical models–particularly the complicated EMF associated with Transrapid.

Notwithstanding these complications, this paper addresses Transrapid-related

EMF in simple terms, without resorting to mathematical equations or vector diagrams.

The reader should understand, however, that this approach somewhat oversimplifies the

true nature of these fields.

C. The Human Health Effects of Extremely Low Frequency EMF

Electromagnetic fields with much higher frequencies than ELF-EMF have drawn

most of the attention of researchers over the past several decades because of the readily

observable threats they pose to biological systems. EMF characterized by very high

frequencies is generally referred to as electromagnetic radiation and can best be

visualized as particles of energy (“photons” or “quanta”) moving through space. Very

high frequency electromagnetic radiation–with frequencies exceeding 1016 Hz–is known

as “ionizing” radiation. This type of high energy radiation, examples of which include xrays and gamma rays, easily break chemical bonds in living organisms and can cause

direct damage to genetic materials in cells.

In contrast, the energy levels of ELF-EMF, such as those generated by

Transrapid, are far too weak to directly break chemical bonds or cause direct genetic

damage. Consequently, until recently it was generally assumed that ELF-EMF does not

have a significant effect on living organisms. It has only been in the past 20 years or so

that the more subtle, but potentially significant, effects of ELF-EMF on biological systems

have drawn the attention of the scientific community and the public.

People in the United States are routinely exposed to ELF-EMF with a frequency of

60 Hz. This is because 60 Hz is the agreed-upon “power frequency” used for electricity

in this country. In Europe, the “power frequency” is 50 Hz. Not surprisingly then, 50-60

Hz has been by far the most extensively studied frequency range of EMF in the United

States and Europe.

It should be noted that many epidemiological studies have found no detrimental

associations between EMF and human health. However, an increasing number of such

studies report a statistically significant association between EMF exposure (or EMF

exposure “surrogates,” as discussed below) and biological effects, such as an increased
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 16

risk of certain cancers.10 Although many scientists maintain that a cause and effect

linkage between EMF exposure and cancer has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, in

1998 a majority of scientists in a working group assembled to review all EMF

epidemological studies to date concluded that there was enough evidence to classify

EMF as a possible human carcinage 11

In reviewing the studies of human exposures to EMF, it must be kept in mind that

there has been no general agreement in the scientific community on which characteristic

or combination of characteristics of EMF (such as spot intensity, time-weighted-average

intensity, peak intensity, frequency, intermittency, transients, etc.) is the best one to

measure when investigating the potential effect of ELF EMF on biological systems.

One of the measurements most frequently used in EMF studies has been the

time-weighted average (TWA) intensity. TWA is the average of a series of intensity

measurements taken over a fixed period of time. TWA intensity is the EMF characteristic

usually measured in studies of EMF exposures of electrical workers. Until recently, it

was assumed that TWA was the EMF characteristic that most closely relates to the dose

(i.e., impact–producing level) of EMF that an individual receives. However, some

researchers now argue that this assumption is not correct for certain kinds of EMF.

Stated another way, the observation that there may not be a correlation between TWA

intensity and observable bioeffects in a given experiment might demonstrate that the EMF

is safe-but it could also mean that the “wrong” characteristic of the EMF was measured

in that experiment.

This complication in the study of EMF exposures is illustrated by the following

observation. It is known that some cancers, such as childhood leukemia, show a

stronger association with EMF surrogates (such as how close an individual lives to highvoltage electrical transmission lines) than they do with measurements of actual EMF

intensities in the homes of the study population. For example, researchers found a

statistically significant relationship between childhood leukemia and the proximity of the

children’s homes to electrical transmission lines. However, no correlation could be found

between these same health effects and the actual measurements of the EMF intensities

in children’s homes (the spot intensity and TWA intensity were the two characteristics

measured).

By far the most comprehensive of these residential studies was a project in

Sweden that involved over 500,000 individuals. This study found that the measurement

of the distance of a residence from electrical transmission and primary distribution lines,

combined with historic load data for those lines, was a much better predictor of risk for

childhood leukemia than actual spot measurements of EMF.12 As one study notes, “it is

reasonable to hypothesize that an as yet undiscovered factor associated with proximity to

power lines is a causative agent in childhood leukemia.”13

These “surrogate” studies raise a difficult question that pervades the study of

EMF: If something about the EMF associated with power lines is resulting in increased

cancer risk, and that characteristic cannot be accurately described by measurements of

EMF intensity, what exactly is it about power lines that causes the observed effects and

how can it be measured?

We emphasize the above complications in studies of low-energy EMF sources to

make an important point: It is often difficult to compare different studies of the effect of

EMF on biological organisms because to do so would be to compare “apples and

oranges.” Accordingly, one must take care to specify the characteristic(s) of the EMF
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 17

that are measured in a given study, rather than simply state that the EMF measured in

that study was “stronger” or “weaker” than that measured in other studies.

Further complicating matters, the study of the potential effect of EMF on humans

must also take into consideration the natural EMF environment. The earth has its own

magnetic field, which is referred to as “geomagnetism.” This magnetic field is

characterized as “static” because its frequency is zero. That is, the earth’s magnetic

field has a constant intensity that does not change over time when measured at a given

point on the earth’s surface. Such a static EMF is also referred to as a “DC” EMF.

All living things have been exposed to the earth’s “natural” magnetic field since life

began. It has only been in recent times that our magnetic field environment has been

dramatically altered by the widespread use of electrically powered machines, which

generate fields of different intensity and frequency than “natural” geomagnetism. The

EMF of Transrapid is complicated by the fact that it generates both static and variable

magnetic fields.

As noted above, certain epidemiological studies have associated EMF exposure

with increased cancer risk. Recent human and animal studies have focused on the

biological mechanisms (on whole animals, animal organs, and animal cells) associated

with this increased risk. One study commissioned by the FRA (referred to in this paper

as the “Broadband Study”) surveyed past and ongoing research on the effects of EMF

on biological systems. The authors note at the outset the “lack of consensus in the

scientific community as to the extent, or existence, of possible adverse health effects

from, or physiological response to, EMF exposure.”14 They also stress the importance of

distinguishing between biological effects of EMF exposures (many of which have been

observed), and adverse biological effects of such exposures (far fewer of which have

been observed).

The Broadband Study takes issue with the relatively small number of scientists

who claim that there cannot be adverse impacts from ELF-EMF on the bodies of higher

animals because the energy levels associated with ELF-EMF are well below the thermal

energy levels that naturally exist in those animals. The authors point out that numerous

studies have demonstrated that animals have measurable reactions to low-energy EMF,

and they conclude that given sufficient intensity, “there is no question that low-energy

magnetic fields can have biological effects.”15

In other words, the question is not whether there are EMF effects in animals, but

whether those effects are harmful. If a potentially harmful effect is observed, the obstacle

then facing researchers is to determine whether that effect is associated with intensity,

frequency, intermittency, or some other characteristic or combination of characteristics

of the magnetic field under study.16

Recent human and animal studies have focused on the biological changes that

might be causing the increased risk of cancer associated with exposures to certain types

of EMF. Several researchers have observed that melatonin, a hormone produced by the

pineal gland in humans and other animals, appears to protect against the same kinds of

cancers that have been associated with EMF exposures in epidemiological studies.17

This has lead some scientists to ask whether an important biological mechanism

associated with the increase in such cancers might be the inhibition of melatonin

synthesis by the pineal gland.18 Recent experiments on the effect of EMF exposures on

human cells suggest this might well be the case. Some of those cellular experiments

have shown that EMF exposures can indeed inhibit the cell’s production of melatonin.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 18

The effect on melatonin production is only one of a number of bioeffects noted

from EMF exposures in recent cellular and animal experiments, which have generally

reinforced observations from epidemiological studies. As noted in the Broadband Study:

“Conclusions regarding the possibility that EMF exposure may affect cancer risk in

humans are remarkably consistent among reviewers from the fields of cancer

epidemiology and cellular carcinogenesis.”19

While more studies of the effects of low-energy EMF are needed, studies to date

have resulted in a general consensus among researchers that it is unlikely that there is

a single attribute of magnetic fields that determines a response in all biological

systems. Rather, there is evidence that various biological systems respond to different

EMF characteristics in different ways. Studies have now linked the frequency of EMF, the

intensity of EMF and the intermittency of EMF to different biological responses in

humans.

To summarize, animal and cell studies to date have demonstrated that it is

important to consider a variety of EMF characteristics in determining what constitutes

“dose” (i.e., exposures that cause biological effects) in EMF experiments. Frequency,

intermittency, intensity, time rate-of-change and other EMF characteristics have been

associated with different effects in various biological systems.20 Whether the observed

effects are actually harmful to the biological systems in question, however, has not been

resolved by these studies.

D. EMF from the TR07

As illustrated in Figure 1, the magnetic fields generated by the Transrapid

originate from many different sources on the maglev train and in the guideway.

Transrapid produces a complex EMF, considerably more complicated than that

generated by electric power lines and most other sources of man-made magnetic forces.

This complexity is due to the continuous adjustments of the system’s electro-magnetic

components to maintain speed, levitation, propulsion and guidance. These sources

generate different kinds of fields that continuously interact with one another and change

as the train moves down the guideway.

Maglev magnetic fields are not substantially different from rail systems in terms of

intensity. Transrapid EMF intensity is within the range of rail technologies in terms of

both peak intensity and time weighted average intensity, as shown in Figure 2. What

does distinguish the Transrapid from other rail technologies is its unique combination of

DC fields (originating primarily from the guideway), the range of frequencies encountered,

and the highly variable changes in the intensity levels measured over time

(intermittency).21

In an effort to determine the potential effects of EMF generated by maglev trains,

the FRA funded several studies in the early 1990s, including the Broadband Study

referred to above. Another FRA-sponsored study (hereinafter “Summary Report”)

identified and evaluated the results of studies of Americans exposed to EMFs in the ELF

range (i.e., 0 to 3000 Hz) to determine how the EMF exposure environment of the typical

American has been characterized to date. The FRA felt that this understanding would

“provide a context for evaluating the exposures associated with new technologies such

as magnetically levitated vehicles (maglev).”22

The Summary Report reviewed three major categories of previous EMF studies:

residential exposures, occupational exposures and transportation exposures. The study
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

QRWHG WKDW DW WKH WLPH RI WKH VXUYH\  YHU\ OLWWOH UHVHDUFK KDG EHHQ GRQH RQ

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQUHODWHG H[SRVXUHV  5DWKHU PRVW RI WKH HDUOLHU VWXGLHV LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH

HIIHFWV RI H[SRVXUH WR WKH 3SRZHU IUHTXHQF\ ́ RI (0)  WR  +] WKDW LV WKH (0)

DVVRFLDWHGZLWKFRQYHQWLRQDOXVHVRIHOHFWULFDOSRZHU

0RVW RI WKH SRZHU IUHTXHQF\ VWXGLHV DOVR DVVXPHG WKDW WKH DSSURSULDWH

FKDUDFWHULVWLFWRPHDVXUHZDVWKHWLPHZHLJKWHGDYHUDJH7:$LQWHQVLW\$VZHKDYH

VHHQ KRZHYHU DQG DV WKH 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW DFNQRZOHGJHV ERWK ODERUDWRU\ DQG

HSLGHPLRORJLFDO VWXGLHV VXJJHVW WKDW WKH 7:$ LQWHQVLW\ RI (0) PD\ QRW EH WKH 3PDLQ

SDUDPHWHU RI LQWHUHVW ́ LQ VWXG\LQJWKH ELRHIIHFWV RI (0) 7KH 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW DOVR

UHYLHZHG ODERUDWRU\ VWXGLHV RI (0) DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW 3QR VLQJOH PHFKDQLVP FDQ

DFFRXQW IRU WKH YDULRXV ELRORJLFDO HIIHFWV WKDW DUH QRZ EHLQJ UHSRUWHG ZLWK VRPH

FRQVLVWHQF\IURPODERUDWRU\VWXGLHV ́

'HVSLWH WKH XQFHUWDLQWLHV QRWHG LQ WKH 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW WKH DXWKRUV UHDFKHG

LPSRUWDQWFRQFOXVLRQVDERXWPDJOHYV\VWHPV7KH\IRXQGIRUH[DPSOHWKDWFRPSDULQJ

DYDLODEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ (0) DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI HOHFWULF UDLO WUDQVSRUW

WHFKQRORJLHVVKRZVWKDWLQWHUPVRILQWHQVLW\WKHPDJOHYILHOGVZHUHQRKLJKHUHLWKHURQ

DSHDNILHOGRUDYHUDJHILHOGEDVLVWKDQWKRVHRIRWKHUUDLOWHFKQRORJLHVFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH

VWXG\  7KH 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW FRQFOXGHV WKDW EDVHG RQ DYDLODEOH GDWD 3PDJOHY

WHFKQRORJ\ DV HYLGHQFHG LQ WKH *HUPDQ 75 V\VWHP DOWKRXJK D XQLTXH

H[SRVXUH HQYLURQPHQW GRHV QRW SUHVHQW DQ\ XQXVXDO (/)(0) H[SRVXUHV WR

SDVVHQJHUVRUFUHZ ́

7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ FRQFOXVLRQ RI WKH %URDGEDQG 6WXG\

3>7@KHUHLVQRHYLGHQFHWKDWWKH75PDJOHYYHKLFOHLVOLNHO\WRUHSUHVHQWDQ\ULVN

IURPPDJQHWLFILHOGH[SRVXUHWKDWLVJUHDWHUWKDQWKDWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKRQHRUPRUH

RIWKHSUHVHQWO\RSHUDWLQJHOHFWULFDOO\SRZHUHGUDLOV\VWHPV ́

7RDOORZDPRUHGLUHFWFRPSDULVRQRI(0)IURPPDJOHYV\VWHPVZLWKRWKHU(0)

VRXUFHV WKH )5$ FRQWUDFWHG ZLWK (OHFWULF 5HVHDUFK DQG 0DQDJHPHQW ,QF (50 WR

PHDVXUH FKDUDFWHUL]H DQG DQDO\]H(0) HPLVVLRQVIURPWKH7UDQVUDSLG75 3(50

6WXG\ ́  (50 HYDOXDWHG WKH LQWHQVLW\ VSDWLDO DQG IUHTXHQF\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI ERWK

VWDWLF'&DQGDOWHUQDWLQJ$&PDJQHWLFILHOGVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH757KHUHVXOWLQJ

UHSRUW GHVFULEHVWKHPDJQHWLFILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV FRQGXFWHG LQ$XJXVW  RQERDUG

WKH75DQGLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHWUDLQJXLGHZD\SDVVHQJHUVWDWLRQFRQWUROFHQWHUDQG

SRZHUVXSSO\IDFLOLWLHVDWWKH7UDQVUDSLG7HVW)DFLOLW\LQ(PVODQG*HUPDQ\

(50 UHFRJQL]HG WKDW WKH UHODWLYHO\ VLPSOH GHYLFHV XVHG WR PHDVXUH (0) IURP

KLJKSRZHUWUDQVPLVVLRQOLQHV2WKHVRXUFHRIIDLUO\VWDEOH(0)VRI+]IUHTXHQFLHV2

ZRXOGQRWEHDSSURSULDWHIRUWKH757RFDSWXUHWKHFRPSOLFDWHG(0)FKDUDFWHULVWLFV

RIWKH7UDQVUDSLGWKHUHVHDUFKHUVXVHGDQHZPRQLWRULQJV\VWHPNQRZQDV0XOWL:DYH

7KHSULPDU\FRQFOXVLRQVRIWKH(506WXG\ZHUHDVIROORZV

 ,QWKHSDVVHQJHUFRPSDUWPHQWRID75YHKLFOHPRYLQJGRZQWKHJXLGHZD\

D ZLGH UDQJH RIIUHTXHQFLHV WR  +] ZDV UHFRUGHG ZKLFK YDULHG JUHDWO\ RYHU

WLPH

 (OHYDWHG PDJQHWLF ILHOG OHYHOV RQO\ H[LVW QHDU WKH JXLGHZD\ IRU WKH EULHI

SHULRGVRIWLPHZKHQWKHWUDLQSDVVHVE\/LNHWKHILHOGVRQERDUGWKHPDJQHWLFILHOGV

DORQJWKHJXLGHZD\VKRZDPXOWLWXGHRIIUHTXHQFLHVYDU\LQJRYHUWLPH

 0DJQHWLF ILHOGV DW WKH SDVVHQJHU VWDWLRQ ZHUH VLPLODU WR WKRVH DORQJ WKH

JXLGHZD\
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

$V WKH (50 6WXG\ QRWHV  37KH IUHTXHQF\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH WLPHYDU\LQJ

PDJQHWLFILHOGVRQERDUGWKH75YHKLFOHDWWKHVWDWLRQQHDUWKHJXLGHZD\RUQHDUWKH

SRZHU VXSSO\ HTXLSPHQW DUH XQLTXH IURP WKRVH WKDW KDYH EHHQ PHDVXUHG WR GDWH

DQ\ZKHUHHOVHLQWKHHQYLURQPHQW ́7KHVWXG\DOVRQRWHVKRZHYHUWKDWWKLVIUHTXHQF\

FKDUDFWHULVWLF KDV QRW EHHQ VKRZQ WR SURGXFH VLJQLILFDQW DGYHUVH ELRORJLFDO HIIHFWV LQ

OLYLQJRUJDQLVPV

:LWKUHVSHFWWRWKHLQWHQVLW\RIWKH75PDJQHWLFILHOGV ERWK LQWHUPV RIWLPH

ZHLJKWHG DYHUDJH DQG SHDN LQWHQVLWLHVWKH OHYHOV LQWKHWUDLQFRPSDUWPHQWV DORQJWKH

JXLGHZD\DQGDWWKHVWDWLRQZKHQWKHWUDLQSDVVHVE\IDOOZHOOZLWKLQWKRVHRIPDJQHWLF

ILHOGV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KRXVHKROG DSSOLDQFHV   7KH (50 6WXG\ QRWHV WKDW EHFDXVH

WKHUHLVVROLWWOHNQRZQDERXWZKDWDVSHFWVRIORZIUHTXHQF\PDJQHWLFILHOGVLIDQ\DUH

ELRORJLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWSXEOLFDFFHSWDQFHRIPDJQHWLFILHOGH[SRVXUHVLVEDVHGPRUHRQ

3HTXLW\ DQG FRPSDUDELOLW\ ́ WKDQ WR RWKHU VRXUFHV RI (0) WKDQ WR TXDQWLILDEOH

FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH ILHOG LWVHOI  ,Q WKLV OLJKW WKH VWXG\ FRPSDUHV WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH

PDJQHWLF ILHOGV JHQHUDWHG E\ RWKHU FRPPRQ VRXUFHV RI (0) UHDFKLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ

FRQFOXVLRQV

 6WDWLFILHOGVHQFRXQWHUHGRQERDUGWKH75DUHJHQHUDOO\ZLWKLQWKHUDQJHRI

WKHHDUWK¶VQDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJPDJQHWLFILHOG

 7KH SHDN LQWHQVLWLHV RIWKH VWDWLFILHOGV HQFRXQWHUHG RQ ERDUGWKH75 DUH

FRPSDUDEOHWRWKRVHQHDUDUHIULJHUDWRUZKLFKLVHTXLSSHGZLWKDPDJQHWLFGRRUVHDO

 7KH DYHUDJH LQWHQVLWLHV RI WKH PDJQHWLF ILHOGV IRXQG LQ WKH SDVVHQJHU

FRPSDUWPHQWRIWKH75IDOOZHOOZLWKLQWKHLQWHQVLW\OHYHOVWKDWFKDUDFWHUL]HPDJQHWLF

ILHOGVIRXQGQHDUKRXVHKROGDSSOLDQFHVDQGDWWKHRXWHUHGJHRIWUDQVPLVVLRQOLQHULJKWV

RIZD\7KHPDJQHWLFILHOGLQWHQVLWLHVIRXQGQHDUWKHJXLGHZD\VZKHQDWUDLQSDVVHVE\

DUH W\SLFDO RI WKRVH IRXQG DW WKH HGJH RI WUDQVPLVVLRQ OLQH ULJKWVRIZD\ DQG QHDU

KRXVHKROGDSSOLDQFHV

 )LJXUH FRPSDUHV WKH (0) LQWHQVLWLWHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK 7UDQVUDSLG WR WKH

LQWHQVLWLHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKRWKHUW\SHVRIHOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWLQFRPPRQXVH

7KH(506WXG\DOVRFRPSDUHVWKHLQWHQVLWLHVRIWKHPDJQHWLFILHOGVJHQHUDWHGE\

75ZLWKHVWDEOLVKHGVDIHW\VWDQGDUGVZLWKWKHIROORZLQJUHVXOWV

 75 PDJQHWLF ILHOGV RQERDUG WKH YHKLFOH DUH DW OHDVW WZR RUGHUV RI

PDJQLWXGHRUWLPHVEHORZWKHOHYHOVHWDVWKHPD[LPXPIRUFRQWLQXRXVH[SRVXUH

E\WKH:RUOG+HDOWK2UJDQL]DWLRQ

 7KHPD[LPXPPDJQHWLFILHOGLQWHQVLWLHVIRXQGRQWKH75DUHRQHRUGHURI

PDJQLWXGHRUWLPHVEHORZWKHFRQWLQXRXVSXEOLFH[SRVXUHFULWHULRQ*DXVVVHWE\

WKH,QWHUQDWLRQDO5DGLDWLRQ3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\

 75PDJQHWLFILHOGVRQERDUGWKHYHKLFOHDUHWKUHHRUGHUVRIPDJQLWXGH RU

 WLPHV EHORZ WKH VWDQGDUG VHW E\ WKH $PHULFDQ &RQIHUHQFH RI *RYHUQPHQWDO

,QGXVWULDO+\JLHQLVWV

,QVXP(50¶VFRPSDULVRQRIWKH75(0)ZLWKWKRVHJHQHUDWHGE\RWKHU(0)

VRXUFHV FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH DYHUDJH LQWHQVLW\ DQG SHDN LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH 75 ILHOG LV

FRPSDUDEOH WR WKDW HQFRXQWHUHG LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW IURP RWKHU FRPPRQ VRXUFHV

+RZHYHU WKH IUHTXHQF\ UDQJH RYHU ZKLFK WKHVH LQWHQVLWLHV DUH HQFRXQWHUHG DQG WKH

YDULDELOLW\RIFKDQJHVLQLQWHQVLW\RYHUWLPHPDNHWKHPDJOHY(0)XQLTXHFRPSDUHGWR

RWKHUFRPPRQO\HQFRXQWHUHGVRXUFHV
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 21

Another study commissioned by the FRA addresses some of the uncertainties

noted in the above studies, and particularly the potential EMF effects of those

characteristics that appear unique to maglev systems: variability of intensity and

frequency over time. The study, conducted by Kenneth R. Groh at the Argonne National

Laboratory (“Groh Study”),33 investigated the biological effects in human cells and rats

from exposures to an EMF environment similar to that associated with Transrapid.

Magnetic fields and their individual AC and DC components were tested at the range of

intensities measured by ERM in the passenger compartment of the TR07.

Higher intensity fields, up to seven times the average intensity measured in the

TR07 (referred to as “7X TR07), were also studied. The 7X TR07 was thought to

simulate the maximum magnetic field strength likely to be generated in the passenger

compartment of superconducting maglev trains like the one now being tested in Japan.

The cells used in the Groh Study were transformed human cancer cell lines.

These cell lines were selected because the literature reported associations between

changes in such cells and exposure to ELF-EMF. The cells were exposed to the TR07-

simulated magnetic fields and then examined for cell growth changes and alteration of

chemically stimulated cell differentiation.

A total of 22 magnetic field exposure experiments were run on the test cells,

varying magnetic field exposure by intensity, frequency, field orientation, and duration.

For one type of cells (melanoma cells) the changes in growth rates and in melatonin

production levels were measured. It was found that there was no change in growth

or melatonin production due to TR07-type magnetic field exposures. For another

type of cell (CEM T-lymphoblastoid cells) intermittent and continuous exposure to 1X and

7X TR07 magnetic fields produced no variation in cell growth or differentiation. The Groh

Study concludes that “maglev EMF exposure at up to seven times the intensity

produced by the TR-07 vehicle . . . has no deleterious effect on the growth or

differentiation of CEM T-lymphoblastoid cells.”34

The Groh Study subjected approximately 1,000 rats to experiments during which

the animals were exposed to TR07-simulated magnetic forces daily, for seven days in

each of three experiments during different times of the day. (Because melatonin levels in

rats—as in humans—are known to vary between hours of light and hours of darkness,

the differences between effects of daytime and nighttime exposures were also explored.)

In the rat experiments, the daily rhythm of pineal gland melatonin and its

regulatory enzyme (NAT) was determined several times during the course of the

magnetic field exposure. No significant changes in pineal melatonin levels occurred

as a result of simulated TR07 magnetic field exposure under a number of

exposure scenarios.35 The only statistically significant pineal gland response to

maglev-type magnetic fields occurred when animals were exposed to intermittent DC

magnetic fields at 7X TR07 intensities and frequencies-that is, the type of EMF

associated with the Japanese maglev but not with Transrapid. The study concludes that

“MF fields simulating those that are produced by the TransRapid TR-07 vehicle

had no statistically significant influence on pineal indoleamine rhythms.”36

E. Summary of Studies Relating TR07 EMF Exposures to Human

Health Effects

Based on the EMF studies summarized above, it is reasonable to conclude that

although the extremely low frequency magnetic fields associated with Transrapid are
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

KLJKO\ FRPSOLFDWHG DQG TXLWH XQFRPPRQ WKHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH WKDW WKRVH ILHOGV DUH

DVVRFLDWHGZLWKDGYHUVHELRORJLFDOHIIHFWVLQKXPDQVRUDQLPDOV

,,, 12,6(

$ ,QWURGXFWLRQ

7KHQRLVHOHYHOVJHQHUDWHGE\PDJOHYWUDLQVKDYHDOVREHHQFLWHGE\WKH*HUPDQ

*UHHQ3DUW\DQGRWKHUVDVRQHRIWKHSRWHQWLDOO\QHJDWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVRIWKLV

QHZWHFKQRORJ\$VZLWK(0)LPSDFWVDGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHOHYHOVDQGHIIHFWVRIQRLVH

JHQHUDWHGE\7UDQVUDSLG UHTXLUHVD UXGLPHQWDU\XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRI

VRXQGDQGRIWKDWFDWHJRU\RIVRXQGFRPPRQO\UHIHUUHGWRDV3QRLVH ́

9LEUDWLRQVRIDLUPROHFXOHVWKDWUHDFKWKHLQQHUHDUSURGXFHWKHVHQVHRIVRXQG

$Q\ VRXQG VXFK DV D QRWHIURP DPXVLFDO LQVWUXPHQW FDQ EH GHILQHG LQWKUHH ZD\V

SLWFK ORXGQHVV RU LQWHQVLW\ DQG TXDOLW\ RU WLPEUH  7KHVH WKUHH ZD\V RI SHUFHLYLQJ

VRXQGFRUUHVSRQGH[DFWO\WRWKUHHSK\VLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIVRXQGZDYHVIUHTXHQF\

DPSOLWXGHDQGKDUPRQLFFRQVWLWXWLRQRUZDYHIRUPUHVSHFWLYHO\

7KHIUHTXHQF\RIVRXQGZDYHVLVWKHWLPHLWWDNHVRQHFRPSOHWHZDYHWRPRYH

SDVWDSRLQWLQVSDFHLQRQHVHFRQGDVPHDVXUHGLQF\FOHVSHUVHFRQGRU+HUW]+],Q

KXPDQ EHLQJV KHDULQJ RFFXUV ZKHQ VRXQG ZDYHV ZLWK IUHTXHQFLHV EHWZHHQ  DQG

+HUW]+]UHDFKWKHLQQHUHDU

:KHUHIUHTXHQFLHVDUHPXOWLSOHVRIRQHDQRWKHU HJ+]+]+]

WKH\ DUH VDLG WR EH KDUPRQLFDOO\ UHODWHG  0RVW SHRSOH SHUFHLYH KDUPRQLFDOO\ UHODWHG

VRXQGVDVSOHDVDQW

7KH DPSOLWXGH RU LQWHQVLW\ RI D VRXQG ZDYH LV WKH PHDVXUH RI WKH GHJUHH RI

PRWLRQRIDLUPROHFXOHVZLWKLQWKHZDYH7KHJUHDWHUWKHDPSOLWXGHWKHKDUGHUDZDYH

VWULNHV WKH HDUGUXP DQG WKH ORXGHU WKH VRXQG LV SHUFHLYHG  +HQFH 3DPSOLWXGH ́

3LQWHQVLW\ ́DQG3ORXGQHVV ́DOOUHIHUWRWKHVDPHFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIVRXQG7KHDPSOLWXGHRI

DVRXQGORXGQHVVLVXVXDOO\GHVFULEHGE\FRPSDULQJLWWRDVWDQGDUGVRXQGPHDVXUHG

LQGHFLEHOVG%

$VRXQGRI]HURG%LVGHILQHGDVWKHVRXQGZDYHWKDWKDVDQDPSOLWXGHMXVWEHORZ

WKDWRIKXPDQSHUFHSWLRQ$VZHLQFUHDVHWKHGHFLEHOVRIDVRXQGLWLVSHUFHLYHGWREH

ORXGHU  )RU H[DPSOH WKH DPSOLWXGH RI ZKLVSHULQJ LV DERXW  G%  7KH DPSOLWXGH RI

UXVWOLQJOHDYHVLVDERXWG%'HFLEHOVDUHDUUDQJHGLQORJDULWKPLF VFDOHPHDQLQJD

VRXQGRIG%KDVWLPHVWKHLQWHQVLW\RIDVRXQGRIG%7KHUHIRUHZHSHUFHLYH

UXVWOLQJOHDYHVDVEHLQJWLPHVORXGHUWKDQDZKLVSHU

:KHQGHVFULELQJWKHHIIHFWRIVRXQGRQWKHKXPDQHDUVFLHQWLVWVIUHTXHQWO\XVH

D YDULDWLRQ RI WKH GHFLEHO FRQFHSW NQRZQ DV WKH $ZHLJKWHG VRXQG SUHVVXUH OHYHO

PHDVXUHGDVWKH$ZHLJKWHGGHFLEHOG%$7KHWHUP3$ZHLJKWHG ́UHSUHVHQWVDILOWHULQJ

RIVRXQGWKRXJKWWRPLPLFWKHZD\VRXQGZDYHVDUHILOWHUHGE\WKHKXPDQHDUEHIRUHWKH

YLEUDWLRQV DFWXDOO\ LQWHUDFWZLWK ERQHV RIWKH LQQHU HDU$PSOLWXGHV RI VRPH HYHU\ GD\

VRXQGVDUHDVIROORZV

 G%$VRXQGRIDZKLVSHU

 G%$VRXQGRIUXVWOLQJOHDYHV

 G%$EDFNJURXQGQRLVHRIGLVWDQWXUEDQFRQGLWLRQV
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

 G%$KXPDQFRQYHUVDWLRQXQGHUQRUPDOFRQGLWLRQV

 G%$XUEDQEDFNJURXQGWUDIILFQRLVH

 G%$SQHXPDWLFGULOO

 G%$MHWHQJLQHDW\DUGV

$Q\VRXQGRIDQLQWHQVLW\DERYH$G%VRPHVD\G%$LVFRQVLGHUHGDERYHWKH

SDLQWKUHVKROGLQKXPDQV

:HFDQGHILQH3QRLVH ́DVVRXQGVRIPL[HGIUHTXHQFLHVWKDWDUHQRWKDUPRQLFDOO\

UHODWHG1RLVHFDQEHXQSOHDVDQWWRWKHOLVWHQHUEHFDXVHRIWKLVODFNRIKDUPRQLFV2I

FRXUVH HYHQ KDUPRQLF VRXQGV FDQ EH XQSOHDVDQW DQG HYHQ SDLQIXO LI WKH\ DUH ORXG

HQRXJK  :KHWKHU D VRXQG LV FRQVLGHUHG SOHDVDQW RU XQSOHDVDQW 3QRLVH ́ DW GHFLEHOV

EHORZWKH SDLQWKUHVKROG GHSHQGV RQWKH OLVWHQHU DQG FDQQRW EHPHDVXUHG REMHFWLYHO\

7KLVVXEMHFWLYHYDULDEOHWKHQFRPSOLFDWHVWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIZKHWKHUWKHQRLVHIURPD

QHZ WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ V\VWHP ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG DFFHSWDEOH RU XQDFFHSWDEOH WR D JLYHQ

FRPPXQLW\

$OWKRXJKWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKQRLVHLVHLWKHUSOHDVDQWRUXQSOHDVDQWWRPRVWSHRSOH

LVDIXQFWLRQRIERWKWKHDPSOLWXGH ORXGQHVVDQGWLPEUH KDUPRQLFVPRVW VWXGLHVRI

WKH SXEOLF DFFHSWDELOLW\ RI QRLVH VRXUFHV KDYH IRFXVHG RQ ORXGQHVV DV H[SUHVVHG LQ

WHUPVRI$ZHLJKWHGVRXQGSUHVVXUHOHYHOVPHDVXUHGLQG%$$VQRWHGEHORZWKLVLV

WKHPHDVXUHXVHGE\WKH)5$LQGHWHUPLQLQJDFFHSWDEOHQRLVHOHYHOVIURPQHZUDLOZD\

V\VWHPV$OWKRXJKZHXVHRQO\G%$ORXGQHVVLQWKLVSDSHULQHYDOXDWLQJWKHQRLVHIURP

7UDQVUDSLG LW VKRXOG DOVR EH QRWHGWKDWWKHIUHTXHQF\ VSHFWUXP DVVRFLDWHGZLWK QRLVH

IURP7UDQVUDSLGH[KLELWVQRFRQVSLFXRXVSHDNVLQOHYHODQGKDVDXQLIRUPQDWXUHWKHUHE\

DYRLGLQJWKHKLJKVKULOOVRXQGDQGWKHUROOLQJUXPEOLQJQRLVHRIPDQ\FRQYHQWLRQDOVWHHO

ZKHHOWUDLQV,QRWKHUZRUGVWKHVRXQGIURP7UDQVUDSLGPD\EHSHUFHLYHGE\PDQ\DV

PRUHSOHDVDQWWKDQQRLVHRIWKHVDPHLQWHQVLW\IURPFRQYHQWLRQDOUDLOWUDIILF

1RLVHVLQDJLYHQFRPPXQLW\FRPHIURPDYDULHW\RIVRXUFHVDQGXVXDOO\FKDQJH

FRQWLQXRXVO\RYHUWKHFRXUVHRIDGD\$FRQFHSWNQRZQDVWKHHTXLYDOHQW$ZHLJKWHG

VRXQGSUHVVXUHOHYHO/HTLVRIWHQXVHGWRGHVFULEHWKHQRLVHOHYHORIDFRPPXQLW\7KLV

FRQFHSWPLJKWEHWKRXJKWRIDVDZD\WR 3DYHUDJH ́WKHORXGQHVVRIYDULRXVQRLVHVLQD

FRPPXQLW\RYHUDJLYHQSHULRGRIWLPHXVXDOO\DKRXUSHULRG

$QRWKHU PHDVXUH RI FRPPXQLW\ QRLVH OHYHOV LV WKH 3GD\QLJKW DYHUDJH VRXQG

SUHVVXUH ́/GQ7KLVLVWKHKRXUDYHUDJHVRXQGSUHVVXUHZLWKWKHVRXQGSUHVVXUH

H[SHULHQFHGDWQLJKWZHLJKWHGVOLJKWO\WRDFFRXQWIRUDFRPPXQLW\¶VLQFUHDVHGVHQVLWLYLW\

WRQLJKWWLPHQRLVHV

%HFDXVHWKH)5$XVHV/GQDQG/HTWRHYDOXDWHWKHQRLVHLPSDFWRIFRQYHQWLRQDO

WUDLQVZHXVHWKHVHFRQFHSWVDVZHOOLQWKLVSDSHU

$QRWKHULPSRUWDQWQRLVHFKDUDFWHULVWLFDQGRQHWKDWPD\EHRIJUHDWHVWFRQFHUQ

ZLWK UHVSHFWWRPDJOHYWUDLQV LVWKHWLPH KLVWRU\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RU 3RQVHW UDWH ́ RIWKH

QRLVHZKLFKLVVRPHWLPHVFDOOHGWKH3VWDUWOHHIIHFW ́%ULHIORXGQRLVHVHVSHFLDOO\RQHV

WKDWFRPHXSTXLFNO\DQGDUHQRWH[SHFWHGE\WKHOLVWHQHUFDQKDYHDKLJKVWDUWOHHIIHFW

3HRSOH XVXDOO\ ILQG VXFK QRLVHV PRUH DQQR\LQJ WKDQ QRLVHV RI HTXDO LQWHQVLW\ WKDW

FRQWLQXH RYHU D ORQJHU SHULRG RIWLPH RUWKDW EXLOG XSPRUH JUDGXDOO\ VR DVWR JLYHWKH

OLVWHQHUZDUQLQJRIWKHDSSURDFK2QHZD\WRGDPSHQWKHVWDUWOHHIIHFWLVWRDOORZWKH

OLVWHQHU WR DQWLFLSDWH D ORXG QRLVH E\ XVLQJ D TXLHWHU DQGRU PRUH KDUPRQLF VRXQG WR

VLJQDOWKDWWKHORXGHUQRLVHLVDERXWWRRFFXU
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 24

B. Noise and Transrapid

As illustrated in Figure 4, noise from Transrapid comes from a variety of

sources, with different sources predominating at different speeds. At speeds from zero

to 60 mph, noise from the train’s propulsion or auxiliary equipment predominates, the

main source of this noise being the vibration of magnets in the propulsion system.

Because this noise level is relatively low and is generally not considered annoying, it is

not addressed further in this paper.

At 60 to 120 mph, mechanical noise from guideway vibrations predominates.

Despite the lack of physical contact between moving Transrapid trains and the guideway,

the trains are not free from mechanical/structural noise. In this speed range the major

noise sources are from the vibration of magnets in the propulsion system and vibrations

of the guideway and train body. Because a steel guideway vibrates more than a concrete

one, a steel structure produces more noise as the train glides over it at these speeds.

At speeds above 120 mph, aerodynamic noise resulting from the rush of air over

the surface of the train predominates. This noise, which increases significantly as the

train accelerates from 120 to 300 mph, is created by sound waves generated from the

surface of the train pushing through the surrounding air. The most significant acoustical

noise is created by the flow of air around the front of the train and through the gap

between the bottom of the vehicle and the top of the guideway.

As noted previously, noise has been identified as a potential source of concern

associated with maglev trains. The first operational maglev trains generated high

acoustical noise, with levels over 100 dBA at normal cruising speeds measured at 25

yards away. TRI extensively redesigned the front end of the TR06 version of the train to

address these noise problems. After that redesign, noise tests conducted in mid-1995

by IABG (an independent testing group in Germany) demonstrated that the TR07 was

considerably quieter than the TR06.37 Further front-end redesign in development of the

TR08, TRI’s revenue-service version of maglev, has made the train quieter still.

The noise measurements of the TR07 by IABG were compared to the noise

levels generated by other types of trains. These comparisons showed that at speeds of

under 180 mph, the TR07 was quieter than every type of rail train tested, including a

normal freight train, a regional express train, an inter-city train, and the high speed

German ICE and the French TGV trains. (See Figure 5). At low speeds, Transrapid

avoids the major noise sources of highspeed rail: wheel-rail contact and pantographcatenary (overhead power systems) contact. Because those noise sources

predominate at low speeds, their absence in Transrapid provides a significant

performance advantage in urban areas. For example, Transrapid can travel 25% faster

than existing high-speed rail trains before reaching typical peak noise restrictions of 80 to

90 dBa.38

An investigation of the noise generated by the TR07 Transrapid was conducted

under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT Study).39 The purposes

of the study were to determine maglev’s noise sources, develop noise criteria for high

speed maglev systems, prepare design guidelines for noise control and recommend an

acoustic test facility for maglev research.

As the DOT Study points out, one must do the following to determine how the

FRA noise criteria apply to the Transrapid: (1) identify any noise sensitive areas that

might be impacted by the train; (2) determine the cumulative impact of the train on those

areas by measuring the increased noise level expected in each area; and (3) based on
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 25

standards developed by the FRA, determine if the noise increase will have “no impact,”

an “impact,” or a “severe impact” on each sensitive area.

How the FRA noise criteria will apply to Transrapid depends on the particular

alignment one has in mind. Only after the alignment is determined can the noisesensitive areas along that alignment, if any, be identified and the existing ambient noise

levels in those areas measured. Because any noise generated by a Transrapid train

depends on its speed, one would also have to develop a corresponding speed profile for

the selected alignment to determine the resulting increased noise levels in the areas

through which the train travels.

In 1998 the FRA issued guidelines that can be used to predict noise from a

Transrapid at different distances from the guideway.40 Only at the highest anticipated

speeds (i.e., over 225 mph) and at relatively close distances to the most noise-sensitive

areas (residential housing, schools, hotels, churches and parks) would maglev noises be

in the “severe impact” category. By a combination of sound barriers, modification of

speed profiles, and distancing the guideway from noise-sensitive areas, route planners of

Transrapid systems should have the flexibility to accommodate even the most sensitive

communities.

One advantage of a new transportation system like Transrapid is that it can be

located so as to avoid unacceptable impacts. The guideway can be moved far enough

away from noise-sensitive areas to avoid severe impacts or it can be located in an area

that already has high noise levels that would effectively mask the increase caused by

Transrapid. For example, if a Transrapid guideway is located in a highway right-of-way

such that the highway is between the guideway and a noise sensitive area, the maglev is

not expected to have an adverse effect on the noise-sensitive area regardless of its

speed because the noise characteristics of major highways are generally of such

intensity and quality that they mask the noise generated by Transrapid, even at speeds of

250 mph or greater.

Instead of, or in addition to, an alignment change to avoid noise-sensitive areas,

the speed profile of the Transrapid can be modified to slow the train down in such areas

to lower the noise intensity to acceptable levels.

Another alternative is the construction of noise barriers, as is often done on

highway systems, to muffle the sound of passing trains. Where the Transrapid guideway

is elevated, the barriers would be mounted on the sides of the guideway to be effective. If

the guideway is at ground level, barriers could be constructed along the rights-of-way as

is done with highways. Studies have shown that properly built noise barriers can

decrease the noise intensity of a passing Transrapid train by up to 8 dBA.41 That is, such

barriers can make passing maglev trains seem eight times quieter.

The “startle effect” of a new train can be inferred from recent research by the U.S.

Air Force on the noise impacts of low-flying aircraft. The Air Force found that startle

effect depended on the rate that a noise goes from zero to its maximum intensity from

the perspective of the listener. This “onset rate” is a function of the speed of the noise

source and the distance of the source from the listener. Utilizing these observations, a

DOT study found that for trains, the potential for startle is confined to an area quite close

to the tracks. For the Transrapid, for example, when the train is traveling at 100 mph,

startle can occur to a listener within 21 feet of the guideway; at 250 mph, it can occur to a

listener within 52 feet from the guideway, assuming no warning is given of the approach

of the train and no noise barriers are constructed to dampen the startle effect.42 Figure
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 26

6 shows how startle effect varies based on the speed of the maglev train and its distance

from the listener.

As with noise impacts, it is generally agreed that changes in alignment and/or use

of noise barriers can readily reduce the startle effect of the Transrapid to acceptable

levels. Alternatively, the sounding of an acoustic warning device might precede the

passing of the train, thereby reducing this effect.

In sum, at realistic operating speeds, the noise from Transrapid will be quieter

than any other train now in service. Transrapid can travel at least 50 percent faster than

conventional trains before reaching noise levels of 80-90 dBA, the levels considered to be

restrictive for highly noise-sensitive areas. At speeds approaching 225 mph,

aerodynamic noise from the Transrapid can exceed the FRA’s “severe impact” criteria

for certain noise-sensitive areas. However, maglev system planners should be able to

reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels by employing a combination of

alignment relocation, speed profile variation, and the placement of sound-absorbing

barriers.

IV. VIBRATIONS

The effect of vibrations from passing Transrapid trains has also been extensively

evaluated. This effect is related to the noise effects because vibrations of various

materials are often accompanied by noises. Ground-borne vibrations of the type caused

by the Transrapid are usually measured in terms of velocity decibels (VdB).

The vibrations from a passing vehicle can have a negative effect on people,

buildings and equipment. To evaluate the potential for damage to a building, the peak

velocity of a vibration, referred to as peak particle velocity (PPV), is of greatest interest.

In comparison, the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually of greatest interest in

assessing the effect of a vibration on people, because this is one way to look at the

average intensity of a vibration. RMS velocity is considered a better measure of the

effect of vibrations on people than peak velocity because the human body tends to take

some time to react to vibrations. Vibrations with RMS of less than 70 VdB are usually not

considered significant for human beings.

Even though a Transrapid vehicle does not literally touch the guideway, the

sudden on and off load of the vehicle’s weight on the guideway causes various kinds of

vibrations. These vibrations pass through the guideway foundations into the ground and

are known as ground-borne vibrations. The extent to which these vibrations move

through the ground to impact people and structures along the travel corridor depends on

the guideway foundation construction, the characteristics of the soil, and the distance

from the guideway to the receptor. Soil conditions are known to have a strong influence

on the levels of ground-borne vibrations.

As shown in Figure 7, the FRA has established ground-borne vibration impact

criteria for various kinds of building uses.43 The one criterion potentially applicable to

Transrapid is what FRA calls the “human annoyance” standard. The FRA also has a

building damage standard, but this is not expected to be applicable to the relatively low

level ground vibrations expected from the Transrapid at other than very short distances

from the guideway.

The FRA has assigned different human annoyance standards to each of three

categories of land use, with the lowest (VdB) level assigned to buildings where vibration

would interfere with sensitive equipment. A higher VdB is allowed for residences where
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

SHRSOH VOHHS DQG D KLJKHU9G% VWLOO LV DOORZHGIRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO ODQG XVHV ZLWK SULPDULO\

GD\WLPHH[SRVXUHV

9LEUDWLRQ LPSDFWV IURP QRUPDO 7UDQVUDSLG RSHUDWLRQV DUH QRW H[SHFWHG WR EH

VLJQLILFDQW  (VWLPDWHV E\ 75, RI WKRVH LPSDFWV VKRZ WKDW YLEUDWLRQV ZRXOG QRW EH

QRWLFHDEOHHYHQDWPSKEH\RQGIHHWIURPWKHJXLGHZD\$WPSKWKLV3QR

SHUFHSWLRQ ́GLVWDQFHGURSVWRIHHW,WLVH[SHFWHGWKDWLQPRVWDUHDVWKHJXLGHZD\

FDQ EH DOLJQHG VR DVWR DVVXUHWKDWWKHWUDLQ GRHV QRW SDVV ZLWKLQWKHVH GLVWDQFHV RI

YLEUDWLRQVHQVLWLYHEXLOGLQJVRUHTXLSPHQW

9 $,532//87,21

$ ,QWURGXFWLRQ

$FRPSUHKHQVLYHHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHHIIHFWRI7UDQVUDSLGRQDLUTXDOLW\PXVWLQFOXGH

DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RIWKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI HPLVVLRQV VRXUFHV GLUHFW DLU HPLVVLRQVIURPWKH

FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHPDJOHYV\VWHPGLUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQVIURPWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHV\VWHP

DQGLQGLUHFWDLU HPLVVLRQV IURP WKH RIIVLWH SURGXFWLRQ RI HOHFWULFLW\ QHHGHG WR UXQ WKH

V\VWHP)XUWKHUPHDVXUHPHQWZRXOGEHQHHGHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHQHWLQGLUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQV

IURP7UDQVUDSLGWRHYDOXDWHKRZDQ\LQFUHDVH LQSROOXWDQWVIURPWKHHOHFWULFLW\JHQHUDWLRQ

WR SRZHU D 7UDQVUDSLG V\VWHP ZRXOG EH RIIVHW E\ GHFUHDVHV LQ SROOXWDQWV IURP WKH

GLVSODFHPHQWRIRWKHUNLQGVRISROOXWLQJYHKLFOHVSULPDULO\KLJKZD\YHKLFOHVDQGDLUFUDIW

% 3ROOXWDQWVRI,QWHUHVW

$LUSROOXWLRQFDQEHGHILQHGDVDQ\HPLVVLRQRIDVXEVWDQFHLQWRWKHDWPRVSKHUH

LQDPRXQWVFRQVLGHUHGKDUPIXOWRKXPDQKHDOWKRUWKHHQYLURQPHQW7KHDLUSROOXWDQWVRI

JUHDWHVWFRQFHUQLQWKLVFRXQWU\DQGFRQVHTXHQWO\WKHRQHVZHHPSKDVL]HLQWKLVSDSHU

DUH WKRVH UHJXODWHG XQGHU WKH IHGHUDO &OHDQ $LU $FW &$$  7KH RQH H[FHSWLRQ LV WKH

HPLVVLRQ RI FDUERQ GLR[LGH DQG RWKHU 3JUHHQKRXVH JDVHV ́ ZKLFK DUH RI FRQFHUQ

EHFDXVH RIWKHLU SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RQ JOREDO ZDUPLQJ 7KHVH JDVHV KDYH QRW \HW EHHQ

UHJXODWHG XQGHU WKH &$$ DOWKRXJK WKH\ PD\ ZHOO EH LQ WKH IXWXUH LQ UHVSRQVH WR

LQWHUQDWLRQDO SUHVVXUHVWR DGGUHVVWKH JOREDO ZDUPLQJ SKHQRPHQRQ $FFRUGLQJO\WKLV

SDSHUDOVRDGGUHVV7UDQVUDSLG¶VHIIHFWRQJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQV

6SHFLILFDOO\WKLVSDSHUDGGUHVVHV7UDQVUDSLG¶VSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWRQWKHIROORZLQJ

DLUHPLVVLRQV

'LUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQVIURPWKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI 7UDQVUDSLG  7KHVH HPLVVLRQV

FRQVLVWLQJSULPDULO\RIVKRUWWHUPHPLVVLRQVRISDUWLFXODWHVDQGQLWURJHQR[LGHVVKRXOG

EHLQVLJQLILFDQWFRPSDUHGWRWKHRWKHUDLUHPLVVLRQVGLVFXVVHGLQWKLVSDSHU

'LUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQVIURPWKHRSHUDWLRQRI7UDQVUDSLG7KHUHZLOOEHQRVXFK

HPLVVLRQV IURP WKH WUDLQ LWVHOI DQG RQO\ PLQLPDO HPLVVLRQV IURP WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI WKH

VWDWLRQV

,QGLUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQLQFUHDVHVGXHWRWKHSURGXFWLRQRIWKHHOHFWULFLW\QHHGHGWR

SRZHU WKH 7UDQVUDSLG V\VWHP  7KH QDWXUH DQG DPRXQW RI VXFK HPLVVLRQV ZLOO YDU\

GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SRZHUSURGXFLQJ VRXUFHV XWLOL]HG EXW PD\ LQFOXGH YRODWLOH RUJDQLF

FRPSRXQGVQLWURJHQR[LGHV VXOIXUGLR[LGHSDUWLFXODWHV FDUERQPRQR[LGHDQG FDUERQ

GLR[LGH
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

,QGLUHFWDLUHPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQVIURP KLJKZD\ YHKLFOHVWKDWPD\ EH GLVSODFHG

E\ PDJOHY WUDLQV  7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW RI WKHVH LQFOXGH YRODWLOH RUJDQLF FRPSRXQGV

QLWURJHQR[LGHVVXOIXUGLR[LGHSDUWLFXODWHVFDUERQPRQR[LGHDQGFDUERQGLR[LGH

& 7KH5HJXODWRU\)UDPHZRUN

%HFDXVH WKH HPLVVLRQ RI DLU SROOXWDQWV LV KLJKO\ UHJXODWHG LQ WKLV FRXQWU\ DQ\

DVVHVVPHQWRIWKHDLUTXDOLW\HIIHFWVRI7UDQVUDSLGPXVWWDNHWKLVUHJXODWRU\IUDPHZRUN

LQWR DFFRXQW  7KH UHJXODWLRQ RI DLU SROOXWLRQ LV JRYHUQHG E\ WKH &$$ DQG VWDWH ODZV

LPSOHPHQWLQJWKDW$FW7KH&$$DPHQGPHQWVRIPDGHQXPHURXVFKDQJHVLQWKH

ODZLQWHQGHGWRDFFHOHUDWHWKHSDFHDWZKLFKWKHQDWLRQ¶VDLUTXDOLW\LVLPSURYHG7LWOHV

DQGRIWKHDPHQGPHQWVUHODWHGLUHFWO\WRWKHDLUSROOXWLRQLPSDFWVRIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

V\VWHPV

7LWOHDGGUHVVHVWKHDWWDLQPHQWDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRIQDWLRQDODPELHQWDLUTXDOLW\

VWDQGDUGV1$$46$WWDLQLQJDQGPDLQWDLQLQJ1$$46DUHFHQWUDOREMHFWLYHVRIWKH&$$

7KHVHVWDQGDUGVDGGUHVVWKHHPLVVLRQRI3FULWHULDSROOXWDQWV ́DQG3R]RQHSUHFXUVRUV ́

LHFKHPLFDOVWKDWUHDFWZLWKOLJKWDQGDWPRVSKHULFJDVHVWRIRUPR]RQH:HUHIHUWR

WKHVH HPLVVLRQV FROOHFWLYHO\ LQ WKLV SDSHU DV 3FULWHULD SROOXWDQWV ́  &ULWHULD SROOXWDQWV

LQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ

1LWURJHQ2[LGHV12[7KHVHFRPSRXQGVDUHFRQVLGHUHGR]RQHSUHFXUVRUV

EHFDXVHWKH\FRPELQHZLWKOLJKWDQGRWKHUFKHPLFDOVLQWKHDWPRVSKHUHWRFUHDWHR]RQH

0DQ\PDMRUPHWURSROLWDQDUHDVKDYHQRW\HWPHWWKH1$$46IRUR]RQH0RVWRI

WKHVHFRPPXQLWLHVKDYHIDLOHGWRGRVREHFDXVHRI12[HPLVVLRQVIURPDXWRPRELOHV

6XOIXU 'LR[LGH 62  7KLV LV D PDMRU VRXUFH RI DFLG UDLQ ZKLFK FDQ IRUP

WKRXVDQGVRIPLOHVDZD\IURPWKH62VRXUFH0DMRUVRXUFHVRI62LQFOXGHJDVROLQH

FRPEXVWLRQE\YHKLFOHVDQGWKHEXUQLQJRIKLJKVXOIXUFRDOE\SRZHUSODQWV

  3DUWLFXODWH 0DWWHU 30  7KHVH DUH PLFURVFRSLF SDUWLFOHV JHQHUDWHG E\ D

YDULHW\ RI VRXUFHV LQFOXGLQJ DPRQJ RWKHUVIXJLWLYH GXVW HPLVVLRQVIURP FRQVWUXFWLRQ

SURMHFWVDQGVRRWIURPWKHEXUQLQJRIIRVVLOIXHOV

  &DUERQ 0RQR[LGH &2  7KLV LV FRQVLGHUHG D 3ORFDO ́ DLU SROOXWLRQ SUREOHP

EHFDXVH XQOLNH WKH RWKHU FULWHULD SROOXWDQWV OLVWHG DERYH LWV PRVW KDUPIXO HIIHFWV DUH

XVXDOO\IHOWLQWKHJHQHUDOYLFLQLW\RIWKHHPLVVLRQVRXUFH

9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&RPSRXQGV92&V7KLVFDWHJRU\RIJDVHVLQFOXGHVPDQ\

GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI RUJDQLF FRPSRXQGV WKDW UHDGLO\ HYDSRUDWH XSRQ FRQWDFW ZLWK WKH

DWPRVSKHUH92&VDUHDOVRR]RQHSUHFXUVRUV

$V UHTXLUHG E\ WKH &$$ DUHDV DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\ KDYH EHHQ FODVVLILHG DV

DWWDLQPHQW RU QRQDWWDLQPHQW IRU R]RQH FDUERQ PRQR[LGH DQG SDUWLFXODWH PDWWHU

GHSHQGLQJ RQ ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH DLU LQ D SDUWLFXODU DUHD PHHWV WKH 1$$46 IRU WKDW

SROOXWDQW'HSHQGLQJ RQWKH GHJUHHWRZKLFK DQ DUHD H[FHHGVWKH1$$46IRU D JLYHQ

FULWHULD SROOXWDQW WKH DUHD LV UHTXLUHG WR LPSOHPHQW FRQWURO SURJUDPV WR DFKLHYH WKH

VWDQGDUG ZLWKLQ D VSHFLILHG SHULRG  6XFK SURJUDPV DUH WR EH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR VWDWH

LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV 6,3V HQIRUFHDEOH E\ WKH VWDWHV DQG E\ WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO

3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\86(3$7KHDLUSROOXWLRQLPSDFWVRIDQ\QHZWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHP

VXFKDV7UDQVUDSLGPXVWEHHYDOXDWHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKH6,3VGHYHORSHGE\WKHVWDWH

RUVWDWHVLQZKLFKWKHV\VWHPZLOORSHUDWH

,QDGGLWLRQWKH3FRQIRUPLW\ ́SURYLVLRQVLQWKH&$$DPHQGPHQWVVWUHQJWKHQ

WKHUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKH$FWWKDWIHGHUDOO\DSSURYHGRUILQDQFLDOO\DVVLVWHGSURMHFWVFRQIRUP
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 29

to state implementation plans. Conformity provisions recognize that transportationrelated air quality issues must be analyzed on a system-wide basis and be controlled

through regional strategies.

 Under this approach, the air pollution effects of federally supported projects must

now be analyzed in the aggregate rather than on a project-by-project basis, as was done

previously. The impact of a Transrapid system on a region’s overall air emissions would

be part of any conformity analysis under the CAA, because it is assumed that the system

would be supported, least at initially, with federal funds.

Title 2 of the 1990 CAA Amendments relate to mobile sources of air pollution.

Among other things, Title 2 sets more stringent emission standards, or requires the

USEPA to do so, for automobiles, trucks and buses. Any assessment of the air pollution

effect of substituting Transrapid for highway vehicle transportation should take into

consideration the anticipated strengthening of the mobile source emission standards

contemplated under Title 2.

To implement the 1990 CAA amendments, the USEPA established stringent new

NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone. Although implementation of these NAAQS has

been delayed by court action, these standards (or some variation of them) are likely to

take effect eventually. Consequently, the air pollution effects of any new transportation

system should also be evaluated in the context of these new particulate and ozone

standards.

Combustion engines and power plants are two important sources of the

particulate matter and ozone regulated by the USEPA. Accordingly, these pollutants

should be addressed in an assessment of Transrapid’s air pollution impacts for two

reasons: (1) the operation of Transrapid is expected to reduce emissions of particulates

and ozone precursors due to the displacement of fossil-fuel burning engines currently in

use; and (2) Transrapid has the potential to increase the level of such emissions from the

new electricity production needed to power a maglev system.

D. Greenhouse Gasses

The “greenhouse effect” is a natural process by which some of the sun’s heat

(infrared radiation) is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere in much the same was as heat is

trapped inside a greenhouse by glass. Many gases in the atmosphere can trap heat

(infrared radiation) by deflecting it back to the earth after it is reflected off of the earth’s

surface. These “greenhouse gases” include naturally-occurring substances such as

carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, as well as man-made gases such as the

chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration equipment.

There is much uncertainty in predictions of the effects of increases in the levels of

greenhouse gases on global warming. However, it is now recognized by most

observers, based on complex climate and statistical models and instrumental data, that

there is a real global warming trend. This is the finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), an international body of thousands of scientists from over 100

nations who evaluate peer-reviewed literature and advise governments on climate

change issues.45 The IPCC predicts a number of adverse consequences if this global

warming trend continues through the 21st century, including severe droughts and floods in

many of the world’s populated areas. Continued global warming could also have

negative impacts on the world’s ecological equilibrium.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 30

A general consensus exists in the scientific community that the emission of

greenhouse gases from man-made sources is a leading cause of global warming. In

December 1997, representatives from 160 countries meeting in Kyoto, Japan established

emission targets for the participating parties. The resulting “Kyoto Protocol” aims to limit

emissions of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorcarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

By far, the greatest source of these gases in the United States is carbon dioxide

released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum products,

and natural gas), with the largest single contributor being the combustion of petroleumbased fuels by the transportation sector. Transportation in this country now accounts for

447 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year, or 32% of all such emissions in

the United States.

A critical objective in the effort to combat global warming and to control the

emissions of criteria pollutants in the U.S. is to substantially reduce this country’s

dependence on fossil fuels, particularly coal and petroleum, as its primary sources of

energy. As discussed below, an important benefit of Transrapid is its potential to help the

United States achieve this goal.

E. Air Emissions from Construction of a Transrapid System

Air emissions from the construction of a Transrapid system, including the

guideway and the stations along the guideway, should not be any more significant than

the emissions associated with other “linear” construction projects, such as highways and

railroads. Increased emissions of two criteria pollutants during construction of

Transrapid are of potential concern: particulates from fugitive dust and fuel combustion,

and nitrogen oxides from fuel combustion. Precise estimates of how Transrapid

construction activities will increase these emissions can only be made after the size of

parking lots, stations, maintenance yards and other infrastructure associated with the

system have been determined for the location in question.

Fugitive dust from construction operations is regulated in most states. Those

regulations generally require construction project managers to take all reasonable steps

to prevent fugitive dust during construction, such as the use of water during soildisturbing operations, the covering of open-bodied trucks and the grading of roads. Such

measures during the construction of the Transrapid guideway and stations should keep

fugitive emissions to an acceptable minimum.

Nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel-burning vehicles during construction is not

expected to add significantly to the total NOx emissions from other sources in the area.

F. Direct Air Emissions from Transrapid

The lack of any direct emissions of air pollutants from the operation of maglev

trains makes Transrapid one of the most environmentally-friendly transportation systems

ever devised. There may be a slight increase in certain direct air emissions from

stations along the Transrapid guideways due to the use of fuel burning equipment

(heaters and boilers) and emergency generators. However, there would be at most only

minimal levels of emissions from such sources, and they are not expected to be of

environmental concern.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 31

G. Indirect Air Emissions from Transrapid

As noted previously, the most significant impacts on air quality from the

introduction of Transrapid systems in this country would be the changes in pollutant

emissions from the decrease in reliance on air and road travel and the increase in the

generation of energy needed to power the Transrapid systems.

1. Decrease in Motor Vehicle Travel

Transrapid can be expected to divert automobile drivers and passengers away

from near-total reliance on the automobile. To the extent it is successful in doing so, the

environment will benefit from decreased emissions from the combustion of petroleum

products.

The extent of this benefit will depend on the number of vehicle passengers

diverted to Transrapid. The resulting decrease in the number of vehicles on the road is

commonly measured in terms of the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A number

of methods are used by transportation planners to estimate the extent to which a new

transportation project will reduce the VMT in existing transportation systems. Travel

modeling was pioneered in the United States in support of the federal government’s

efforts to establish a uniform method of prioritizing federally-funded highway projects.

The government devised a standardized process for analyzing transport demand, known

as the Urban Transportation Modeling System (UTMS), to determine the amount, type

and location of travel in a designated study area.46 Once this demand is estimated, the

effects of Transrapid on vehicle use in the study area, based on assumptions regarding

rider preferences and needs, can be estimated. Using this estimate as an input, the

decrease in highway VMT due to a new Transrapid system can be calculated.

Standard models also exist for estimating how the reduction in VMT in a given

study area will result in a decrease in VOC, CO, CO2, NOx, SO2 and PM emissions.

For example, EPA has developed models known as MOBILE 5b (for VOC, CO and NOX

emissions) and PART 5 (for SO2 and PM emissions) that are now being widely used by

transportation planners. The emission reductions estimated from these models can, in

turn, be incorporated into pollution dispersion models to predict the impact on air quality.

In short, using sophisticated computer models, estimating the vehicle emission

reductions that may result from the introduction of a Transrapid system in a given area is

a more precise science now than ever before–provided that reliable estimates of the

numbers and kinds of highway vehicles displaced by a new Transrapid system can be

made. Determining the actual vehicle displacements from Transrapid is a much less

exact science, although many believe that reasonable estimates of such displacements

are possible.

The National Maglev Initiative (NMI) explored the complexities of estimating the

extent to which both automobile and airplane passengers would be diverted to Transrapid

if the system were available to them. The resulting NMI Report found that this question

was very much dependent on where the train is located. In general, the study assumed

maglev trains would be built in areas where they would compete directly with shortdistance (100-600 mile) air travel and only secondarily with highway travel. Accordingly,

the NMI Report focused on decreases in air passenger miles resulting from Transrapid

and assumed the diversion of automobile passengers to Transrapid would be relatively

insignificant.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 32

The NMI Report’s assumption that a maglev train would not significantly reduce

highway traffic is highly debatable. Others have assumed that a maglev system in the

proper geographical location would divert many automobile passengers to the high-speed

train, given that maglev will make travel faster, safer, and, in many cases, much more

convenient. For example, studies by TRI found that a Transrapid system operating

between Hamburg and Berlin, Germany’s two largest cities, would divert 1.5 million

passengers per year from aircraft, and even more—1.65 million passengers per year—

from automobiles.

2. The NMI Report’s Conclusion on the Decrease in Air

Travel vs. the Increase in Power Needs

The NMI Report looked at 16 transportation corridors in the United States where

maglev systems appeared to be feasible. An important criterion in the selection of these

corridors was that there had to be a significant volume of air travel of under 600 miles

distance. When total trip time by maglev and by aircraft were compared for each

corridor, maglev trip times were shorter in 10 of the 16 corridors, leading the authors to

conclude that many travelers in those corridors would readily switch from air travel to

maglev if given the opportunity. The maximum trip distance in these 10 corridors was

300 miles. However, even up to distances of 600 miles, maglev’s trip time was not

appreciably greater than the trip time by air, suggesting that many passengers would

prefer to travel by maglev even at those longer distances, especially if the maglev fare

was comparable and maglev services more reliable and less weather-dependent.47

The displacement of air travel in the 100-600 mile travel distance range promises

to result in significant decreases in fuel consumption. According to the report, maglev

can offer trip times competitive with air travel for a small fraction of the energy consumed

by an aircraft.

The report evaluated the energy savings that could be realized by maglev’s

displacement of air travel by simulating the operation of maglev in 11 of the 16 corridors

studied. Energy savings tended to be the greatest where most of the ridership was

diverted from aircraft, rather than from automobiles.

Based on energy consumed at the system connection (that is, airport or electrical

supply), maglev’s energy consumption could be compared to that of the fuel-efficient

Boeing 737-300 for a 124- to 620-mile trip, as measured in terms of energy per

passenger mile traveled. Even without assuming the use of newer, more efficient power

plants, maglev would consume only one-quarter to one-half of the energy consumed by a

737-300 carrying the same number of passengers the same distance.

The operation of a new Transrapid system will require the generation of electricity,

primarily for the operation of the train itself, but also, to a lesser extent, for the operation

of the associated stations and other equipment. How much energy will be needed to

operate a given Transrapid system depends on the number of trains in the system, the

number and length of trips, the number of vehicles in each consist (train), and other

factors specific to that system.

The NMI Report concluded that by substituting maglev vehicles for aircraft (and to

a lesser extent, for highway vehicles and diesel powered trains), emissions from many

mobile sources would be replaced by emissions from electrical power plants. The study

compared the simulated reductions in air pollution from these displaced mobile sources
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 33

to estimated increases in air pollution from the generation of electricity needed to power

maglev systems.

The NMI Report assumed that maglev’s electricity requirement would be provided

from all of the nation’s primary energy sources as projected for the year 2020. The study

adopted the Department of Energy’s projection that by 2020, the U.S. would derive its

power as follows: 49.4 percent from coal, 17.9 percent from natural gas, 15.5 percent

from nuclear, 4.2 percent from oil, and 13 percent from renewable resources such as

hydropower, wind, and solar. For want of better data, the NMI Report simply assumed

that each of the 11 maglev systems evaluated would utilize the same percentages of the

country’s power sources as are used nationwide in 2020. Based on this assumption, the

authors concluded that, except for SO2 emissions, which would increase by 21%, there

would be sizable reductions in all categories of criteria pollutants from the introduction of

maglev. The average percent change for the specific emissions in the corridors studied

is shown in Figure 8.

The 21% projected increase in SO2 emissions is based on the assumption that

much of the electricity for the new maglev trains would come from the burning of fossil

fuels, particularly coal. However, this may no longer be a valid assumption in light of the

rapid deregulation of the power-generating industry in the U.S.

One impact of the deregulation of the electrical utility industry is that consumers

of electricity, including the operators of Transrapid systems, will have the option of

drawing power from non-fossil fuel burning sources that do not produce high levels of

SO2. Power industry deregulation is now in effect or under serious consideration in

almost every state. This trend has already resulted in the widespread restructuring of the

power-generating industry. One result of this restructuring will be to give consumers

much more freedom of choice in selecting their source(s) of electrical power. California

and many other states already give many consumers this option.

Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that by the time Transrapid systems are

built in the United States, operators of those systems will have the option of choosing

“green power” to run their systems. Some green power sources, such as geothermal,

wind, and solar power, produce virtually no air pollution. Others, like state-of-the-art

natural gas, biomass and hydro-electric, can have very low emission levels. Because

these clean energy sources generate little or no SO2, the assumption in the NMI Report

that this pollutant will necessarily increase from the introduction of maglev trains need not

be the case.

Green power is expected to cost slightly more than traditional power from coal,

petroleum, and nuclear power plants, at least at first. However, it is reasonable to

assume that, at the very least, the operators of a new Transrapid system will be able to

choose a mix of affordable sources of energy such that there will be no net increase in

emissions of SO2, and there will be correspondingly significant net decreases in

emissions of other criteria pollutants from the introduction of maglev trains.

VI. SAFETY

A. Introduction

The designers of Transrapid were well aware of the risks of conventional means

of transportation. They took advantage of the fact that maglev is a new, radically different

transportation system to optimize safety features in the design stage of the train. These
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 34

safety features have now been extensively tested at TRI’s test track in Emsland,

Germany. Those studies demonstrate that, measured in terms of accidental injuries and

fatalities, Transrapid will be the safest form of mechanized transportation in history.

In Germany, each transportation system must be examined, licensed, and

certified to operate by an independent safety certification group.48 TUV Rheinland is the

independent organization that certified the safety of the Transrapid TR07. In doing so,

TUV exhaustively examined the TR07 vehicle, guideway, switches and control systems

and concluded that Transrapid met rigid safety standards developed specifically for

maglev systems.49 These standards (hereinafter “German Safety Standards”), were

developed by a working group headed by the German Federal Railways, the Testing and

Planning Company for Maglev systems, the Institute for Railway Technology, and safety

experts from the railroad industry and TUV.

In 1992, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center conducted a study of

these German Safety Standards “to determine the suitability of German safety

requirements for application to magnetic levitation (maglev) systems as proposed for

U.S. passenger operations” (hereinafter “Volpe Study”).50 The Volpe Study concluded

that “[w]hat is being undertaken in Germany appears to ensure an equivalent level of

safety to what is expected in the United States for similar ground transportation.”51 The

study also notes that the FRA’s safety regulations will have to be extensively updated to

address maglev systems in this country, and recommends that the German Safety

Standards be an important point of reference in that effort.52

In 1990, the FRA published a report on the results of a preliminary safety review of

the Transrapid TR07 by the FRA’s Office of Research and Development (“FRA Safety

Report”).53 The following discussion of the Transrapid’s safety features is based largely

on the Volpe Study, the FRA Safety Report, and technical publications of TRI. These

references make a compelling case for the argument that Transrapid is the world’s

safest motorized system of transportation.

B. Safe Hovering

Uncontrolled contact between the Transrapid train and the guideway on which it

travels would create an unacceptable safety risk, even at relatively low speeds. To

prevent this from happening, the German Safety Standards establish a “safe hover”

concept that requires that trains remain levitated, other than at designated stop locations,

under all conceivable failures and emergency conditions. Transrapid is designed to meet

this standard by assuring there will be no unexpected loss of either the levitation or

guidance system. A high degree of redundancy has been built into both systems. Each

magnet has an individual control system with redundant gap sensors to assure that the

required distance between the train and the guideway is maintained at all times. 

For these redundant systems to operate properly, adequate electricity must be

supplied to the magnets, even if the external source of electricity fails while the train is in

operation. If such a failure should occur, on-board batteries will supply emergency power

to maintain the levitation and guidance systems. These batteries are charged during the

journey to assure that the train will continue to levitate until it reaches the next terminal. In

such an emergency, braking will also be carried out by on-board batteries which will slow

the train down to about seven mph, after which the train will lower onto skids and glide to

a stop. The skids are especially constructed to avoid heat buildup from friction during

this braking operation.
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

& 6DIH(YDFXDWLRQ

$QHVVHQWLDOFRPSRQHQWRI7UDQVUDSLG¶VVDIHW\UHODWHGGHVLJQLVWKHUHTXLUHPHQW

WKDWDWUDLQPXVWEHDEOHXQGHUDQ\FLUFXPVWDQFHWRFRPHWRDVWRSDWDORFDWLRQRQWKH

JXLGHZD\ ZKHUH SDVVHQJHUV FDQ EH VDIHO\ HYDFXDWHG  7KH IROORZLQJ GHVLJQ

FKDUDFWHULVWLFVKDYHEHHQEXLOWLQWR7UDQVUDSLGWRDVVXUHWKDWVXFKVDIHVWRSSLQJ]RQHV

DUHDOZD\VDFFHVVLEOHWRSDVVHQJHUV

 7KHRQERDUGEDWWHU\V\VWHPVDUHGHVLJQHGWRDVVXUHWKDWWKHWUDLQFDQUHDFK

WKHFORVHVWHYDFXDWLRQ]RQHLQWKHHYHQWRIDQHPHUJHQF\RUXQH[SHFWHGORVV

RIH[WHUQDOSRZHU7KLVLVDVVXUHGE\KDYLQJIRXUEDWWHU\ V\VWHPVRQHDFK

YHKLFOH DQ\ WZR RI ZKLFK FDQ FDUU\ D YHKLFOH WR WKH FORVHVW VDIHVWRSSLQJ

]RQH  7KHVH EDWWHULHV DUH HOHFWULFDOO\ LVRODWHG IURP RQH DQRWKHU DQG DUH

UHFKDUJHG IURP SRZHU WUDQVPLWWHG IURP WKH JXLGHZD\ WKURXJK OLQHDU

JHQHUDWRUVDVWKHYHKLFOHPRYHVGRZQWKHJXLGHZD\

 7KH WUDLQ PXVW EH FDSDEOH RI EULQJLQJ LWVHOI WR D VWRS DW D VDIH VWRSSLQJ

ORFDWLRQZLWKRXWDQ\LQSXWRUJXLGDQFHIURPWKHFHQWUDOFRQWUROV\VWHP

 7KH WUDLQ PXVW EH FDSDEOH RI DVVXULQJ VDIH RSHUDWLRQV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH

FHQWUDO FRQWURO V\VWHP  7KLV UHTXLUHPHQW KDV EHHQ PHW E\ EXLOGLQJ

UHGXQGDQF\ RU LQGHSHQGHQW RSHUDWLRQ LQWR WKH 7UDQVUDSLG V\VWHP  7ZR

UHGXQGDQW FRPSXWHU V\VWHPV DUH XVHG IRU YHKLFOH FRQWURO  (DFK V\VWHP

FRQWDLQV WKUHH FKDQQHOV WKDW DUH FRQWLQXRXVO\ PRQLWRUHG  /RVV RI RQH

FKDQQHOLQHLWKHUV\VWHPLVWROHUDWHGEXWDVHFRQGFKDQQHOIDLOXUHLQDQ\RQH

V\VWHPUHVXOWVLQDQ3DXWRPDWLF ́VWRSDWWKHQH[WVWDWLRQRQWKHJXLGHZD\XQWLO

WKHVLWXDWLRQLVFRUUHFWHG

' 6DIH6SHHG&RQWURO

7KH VSHHG RI 7UDQVUDSLG PXVW EH FDUHIXOO\ PDLQWDLQHG WR DYRLG SDVVHQJHU

GLVFRPIRUWRQWXUQVDQGJUDGHVWRSUHYHQWVXGGHQDFFHOHUDWLRQVDQGGHFHOHUDWLRQVWKDW

FRXOG EH SRWHQWLDOO\ GDQJHURXV WR RFFXSDQWV DQG WR DVVXUH WKDW SURSHU SUHVHOHFWHG

VSHHGSURILOHVDUHPDLQWDLQHG7KHGULYHURIWKH7UDQVUDSLGWUDLQGRHVQRWDFWLYHO\FRQWURO

WKHVSHHGRIWKHWUDLQRUDQ\RWKHUDVSHFWVRIWKHWUDLQ¶VRXWRIVWDWLRQRSHUDWLRQH[FHSW

GXULQJHPHUJHQFLHVRURWKHUDEQRUPDORSHUDWLQJFRQGLWLRQV7UDLQVSHHGEUDNLQJDQG

RWKHURSHUDWLRQVDUHFRQWUROOHGUHPRWHO\E\DFHQWUDOFRQWUROOHU

2QFH WKH FHQWUDO FRQWUROOHU FKRRVHV D VSHHG SURILOH IRU D JLYHQ URXWH WKDW

LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH GHFHQWUDOL]HG ZD\VLGH SRUWLRQ RI WKH V\VWHP ZKLFK

FRQVLVWV RI D VHULHV RI FRQWURO XQLWV DORQJ WKH JXLGHZD\  7KHVH ZD\VLGH XQLWV

FRPPXQLFDWHWRWKH FHQWUDO FRQWUROOHU DOO URXWH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV QHFHVVDU\WR LPSOHPHQW

WKHRSHUDWLRQDOSODQ:KHQDOORIWKHURXWHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDUHFOHDUHGE\FHQWUDOFRQWURO

IRURSHUDWLRQWKHVDIHVSHHGHQIRUFHPHQWSRUWLRQRIWKHFRQWUROV\VWHPPRQLWRUVYHKLFOH

VSHHGWRDVVXUHLWUHPDLQVZLWKLQWKHVSHFLILHGSURILOH
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 36

E. Near Impossibility of “Derailment”

Unlike railway systems, it is virtually impossible for a Transrapid train to leave an

intact guideway because the bottom of each vehicle wraps around the guideway. A

purely theoretical scenario exists under which a train could leave the guideway:

encountering an open switch. However, as noted below, the train is programmed such

that it cannot approach any switch that is not in a safe, closed position, as registered by

three independent sensors.

F. Collision Avoidance

Unlike conventional railway systems, the guideway of the Transrapid will have no

at-grade intersections. The system will be built to allow other traffic routes, such as

highways and railroad tracks, to pass under the guideway (or in some cases, over the

guideway). Accordingly, collisions with other types of transport vehicles will not be

possible. This feature gives Transrapid a significant safety advantage over conventional

rail in that it will eliminate additional gradecrossing accidents that currently account for

about half of the fatalities involving U.S. intercity passenger rail travel.

A collision between two maglev trains is technically impossible because the

design of the long stator propulsion system (and the operation control system) prevent

two trains from being in the same motorized section of the guideway at the same time.

The principle of Transrapid’s longstator linear synchronous motor excludes the possibility

of a collision between two maglev vehicles traveling at different speeds in the same

direction or traveling in opposite directions on the same guideway.

The route selection and verification process (imbedded in the operation control

system) that assures safe train speeds will assure that appropriate distances are

maintained between trains. This same route integrity system assures that all guideway

switches along the route are properly locked into place well before a train passes. Before

this is done, three separate sensors on both ends of the guideway section that make up

a switch must register the correct position and verify that the switch is properly locked in

place. If all three sensors do not register their correct positions, the route integrity portion

of the control system will not authorize the train to move along the designated route.

The guideway will be regularly inspected to assure it is free from any large objects

that might obstruct the path of a train. Rights-of-way will be maintained free of trees and

other objects that may result in limbs or other obstructions falling onto the guideway. In

the very unlikely event that a train encounters a heavy object on the guideway at high

speeds, the shape of the nose of the train is designed to deflect the object to one side.

The front of the train has a designed-in crush zone to absorb collisions with heavier

objects without endangering passengers.

The guideway support structures will be designed and constructed in compliance

will all seismic protection requirements to assure the guideway remains earthquake

proof.

G. Emergency Braking

Transrapid’s emergency braking system is designed to assure a controlled

deceleration of a train in the event of an emergency. Transrapid has both primary and

back-up braking systems. The back-up system only operates if the primary system fails.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 37

The primary braking system is operated by the central control system. It

functions by reversing vehicle thrust generated by the propulsion system mounted in the

guideway. Each car has two independently operating backup brakes, known as eddy

current brakes, that induce eddy currents in the guideway’s motor windings to slow the

trains down to less than 10 mph. At that speed, the levitation magnets are de-energized

and the train settles onto landing skids, quickly coming to a stop due to the friction

between the skids and the guideway. The skids are coated with a special high-friction

material to assure rapid deceleration. The heat generated by the train skidding along the

guideway will be high enough to melt ice that may have formed on the guideway assuring

sufficient friction to bring the train to a stop. At no time, however, will the frictional heat be

high enough to create a risk of fire.

H. Fire Safety

Transrapid vehicles set new standards for railway vehicles in terms of fire safety.

Materials used to construct the vehicles are non-combustible, poor transmitters of heat,

temperature-resistant and able to withstand fire penetration. The vehicles will not carry

fuel or any type of pressurized systems on-board. To comply with passive fire protection

standards, the interior furnishing in Transrapid meets the 1988 Air Transport Standards

(five-minute fire at 1100°C without the emission of harmful fumes). Transrapid trains

easily attain the German Safety Standards requirement that all materials inside the train

meet the highest safety level and that fire walls between vehicle sections have a 30-

minute resistance. These standards also require that in the event of a fire, passengers

must be able to readily evacuate from the burning section to an adjacent section.

Fire extinguishing equipment will be available at safe-stopping zones along the

guideway. In the highly unlikely event that a Transrapid train experiences a fire and a loss

of power simultaneously, the vehicle will be automatically braked by the eddy current

brakes (as noted above) allowing it to glide to a smooth stop at the nearest evacuation

point.

I. Indirect Health and Safety Impacts

1. Reduction in Highway and Airline Accidents

To the extent Transrapid systems divert passengers from highway and airline

travel, the probability of those passengers suffering death or injury during their trips will be

greatly reduced. The NMI Report estimates that operation of maglev trains in the 16 U.S.

corridors studied would ultimately prevent 25 air fatalities, 26 highway fatalities, and 37

rail fatalities per year. As noted above, however, the NMI Report also assumed that the

great majority of diverted passengers would be from air travel, with a relatively small

number from highway travel. To the extent Transrapid diverts larger percentages of

highway travelers—as would likely be the case in certain travel corridors—the prevention

of injuries and fatalities would increase substantially, given that highway travel causes far

more life-threatening accidents per passenger mile traveled than does air or conventional

railroad travel.

As noted above, the likelihood of Transrapid actually causing a highway or railway

accident is virtually non-existent because the system will be elevated as necessary to

avoid all road and railroad track intersections. Some have questioned whether highway

drivers in rights-of-way shared with Transrapid might be startled, particularly at night, by

the sudden on-rush of an approaching maglev train. There is little danger of this
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 38

happening because the typical separation distance between the maglev guideway and

the roadway is 120 feet. This separation also applies to the headlights of the maglev

train. In situations where closer guideway/roadway groupings are required, light barriers

may be employed to prevent visual distractions.

2. Reduction in Highway and Airport Stress

In promoting the development of high speed ground transport (HSGT) systems in

this country, the NRC Report noted that the primary objective of these systems would be

to expand capacity in those corridors that are experiencing, or will soon experience,

significant travel delays. The report observes that decades of high economic growth and

low oil prices have dramatically increased travel. In the nine years since that report was

written, both air and highway travel use in this country have greatly exceeded

expectations. Meanwhile, highway expansions and airport construction have not been

able to keep up with the rapidly increasing demand.

The NRC Report states that one of the primary benefits of HSGT systems would

be the resulting improvements in air and highway system performance, assuming

significant numbers of air and highway travelers are diverted to HSGT systems. The

report notes that the “gains to the airport and highway systems and their users would

vary greatly from one HSGT project to another, but they could be large.”54 Because air

traffic delays are believed to increase exponentially as flight operations approach

capacity, and given that many airports are now operating at or near capacity, the authors

of the NRC Report conclude that even relatively small percentage reductions in airline

passengers diverted to HSGT travel could reduce delays and congestion significantly.55

In short, with the introduction of HSGT systems like Transrapid in a number of the

country’s mid-distance (100- to 600-mile) intercity corridors, highway and airport

congestion and delays can be significantly reduced.

VII. CONVENIENCE AND COMFORT

A. Passenger Comfort

The operation of Transrapid trains will be optimized during turns and gradeclimbing to avoid any inconvenience to passengers, such that Transrapid passengers will

not be required to wear seatbelts and may move around in the passenger compartment

of the train at any time.

Transrapid trains have been designed to assure that passengers are not startled

or made uncomfortable by rapid pressure changes when two trains pass one another or

when a train enters a tunnel. Passenger compartments of Transrapid trains employ

state-of-the-art technology to assure pressure-tightness of vehicle bodies. Further,

minimal wind gusts between passing vehicles were carefully predicted when Transrapid

developed standards for tunnel size and distances between parallel guideways.

Transrapid’s contactless technology assures smooth running with minimal rolling

and engine noise inside the vehicle. A primary factor influencing the comfort of

conventional rail passengers is the jolting and jerking that occurs when trains traverse

rougher sections of track. These rough spots will be virtually non-existent in maglev

trains.
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

% :HDWKHU,QGHSHQGHQFH

%HFDXVH RI LWV FRQWDFWOHVV WHFKQRORJ\ 7UDQVUDSLG FDQ UHPDLQ IXOO\ VDIH DQG

RSHUDWLRQDO LQ SRRU ZHDWKHU DQG DW KLJK DQG ORZ WHPSHUDWXUHV  8QOLNH FRQYHQWLRQDO

HOHFWULFLW\GULYHQ UDLO V\VWHPV SDVVHQJHUV QHHG QRW EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK LFH EXLOGXS RQ

RYHUKHDG HOHFWULFDO OLQHV  7KH GULYH FRPSRQHQWV IRU 7UDQVUDSLG DUH LQVWDOOHG RQ WKH

XQGHUVLGHRIWKHJXLGHZD\ZKHUHWKH\DUHSURWHFWHGDJDLQVWVQRZDQGLFHEXLOGXS

7KHDLUJDSRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\VL[LQFKHVEHWZHHQWKHWRSRIWKHJXLGHZD\DQGWKH

XQGHUVLGHRIWKH7UDQVUDSLGYHKLFOHDOORZVWKHWUDLQWRUHPDLQLQRSHUDWLRQHYHQLIDOD\HU

RI VQRZ RI WKLV WKLFNQHVV VKRXOG DFFXPXODWH RQ WKH JXLGHZD\  0RUHRYHU VXFK

DFFXPXODWLRQLVXQOLNHO\DVVQRZVKRXOGEHFRQWLQXRXVO\EORZQRIIWKHJXLGHZD\E\WKH

ZLQGRUIURPSDVVLQJWUDLQV

,Q VKRUW 7UDQVUDSLG V\VWHPV VKRXOG EH PRUH UHVLVWDQW WR ZHDWKHU GHOD\V WKDW

IUHTXHQWO\SODJXHDLUOLQHVKLJKZD\VDQGVRPHIRUPVRIUDLOZD\WUDQVSRUW

& 'HFUHDVHG7UDYHO7LPH

$FFRUGLQJWRWKH10,5HSRUWWKHOLQHKDXOWULSWLPH DFWXDOWUDYHOWLPH H[FOXGLQJ

WLPHWRDFFHVVVWDWLRQVRUDLUSRUWVIRUPDJOHYWUDLQVZRXOGEHOHVVWKDQWKHWULSWLPHIRU

DLUOLQHIOLJKWVRIXQGHUPLOHV:KHQWKHDXWKRUVRIWKH UHSRUWFRQVLGHUHG WRWDOWULS

WLPHLHLQFOXGLQJDFFHVVWLPHPDJOHYKDGDQDGYDQWDJHRYHUDLUWUDYHOLQRIWKH

VWXG\FRUULGRUVXSWRWULSGLVWDQFHVRIPLOHV(YHQDWPLOHGLVWDQFHV0DJOHY¶V

WRWDOWULSWLPHGLVDGYDQWDJHZRXOGEHUHODWLYHO\VPDOOFRPSDUHGWRDLUWUDYHO

9,,, /$1'86(,03$&76

$ 7KH5HJXODWRU\)UDPHZRUNIRU(YDOXDWLQJDQG0LWLJDWLQJ$GYHUVH

/DQG8VH,PSDFWV

3XUVXDQWWRWKH1DWLRQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO3ROLF\$FW1(3$WKH)5$PXVW

FRQGXFWDQHQYLURQPHQWDODVVHVVPHQWRIDQ\QHZWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURMHFWWKDWPD\KDYHD

VLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWRQKXPDQKHDOWKDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQW7KH)5$KDVLVVXHG UHYLVHG

UHJXODWLRQV HIIHFWLYH0D\  WKDW SURYLGH JXLGDQFH RQ KRZWKHVH HQYLURQPHQWDO

DVVHVVPHQWV VKRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG  7KHVH JXLGHOLQHV HPSKDVL]H WKH QHHG IRU IXOO

GLVFORVXUHRIWKH YDULRXVODQGXVHLPSDFWVIURPQHZSURMHFWVDQGKRZWKRVHLPSDFWV

FDQ EH PLWLJDWHG  7KH )5$ JXLGDQFH UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH 38SGDWHG (QYLURQPHQWDO

$VVHVVPHQW 3URFHGXUHV ́ ZLOO UHTXLUH WKDW DQ\ QHZ IHGHUDOO\ VXSSRUWHG WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

V\VWHPVXFKDV7UDQVUDSLGEHHYDOXDWHGIRULWVSRWHQWLDOWRLPSDFWHFRORJLFDOV\VWHPV

ZHWODQG DUHDV HQGDQJHUHG VSHFLHV KDELWDW IORRG SODLQV ZRRGODQGV RSHQ VSDFH

H[LVWLQJ DQG SODQQHG ODQG XVH SDUNODQGV DQG ORFDWLRQV RI KLVWRULF DUFKHRORJLFDO RU

FXOWXUDOVLJQLILFDQFH

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR 1(3$¶V UHTXLUHPHQW WKDW DOO RI WKHVH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFWV EH IXOO\

HYDOXDWHGDQGGLVFORVHGRWKHUVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOODZVUHTXLUHWKDWPDQ\DGYHUVHODQGXVH

LPSDFWVEHDYRLGHGDOWRJHWKHU2RUDWOHDVWPLWLJDWHGWRWKHPD[LPXPH[WHQWSUDFWLFDEOH

)RUH[DPSOHDSURSRVHG7UDQVUDSLGV\VWHPZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJ

IHGHUDOHQYLURQPHQWDOODZVLQWHQGHGWRSUHVHUYHDQGSURWHFWZLOGOLIHDQGODQGXVHYDOXHV

 8QGHUWKH(QGDQJHUHG6SHFLHV$FWLIWKHSURSRVHG7UDQVUDSLGV\VWHPPD\

LPSDFWWKHKDELWDWRIDWKUHDWHQHGRUHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVVXFKWKDWLWPLJKW
)LQDO3URJUDPPDWLF(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW9RO, 0DJOHY'HSOR\PHQW3URJUDP

&

MHRSDUGL]H WKH FRQWLQXHG H[LVWHQFH RI WKDW VSHFLHV WKH SURSRVHG V\VWHP

PXVWEHPRGLILHGWRDYRLGWKDWLPSDFW

 8QGHU 6HFWLRQ I RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ $FW LI D 7UDQVUDSLG

SURMHFWUHTXLUHVWKHXVHRIDQ\VLJQLILFDQWSXEOLFSDUNUHFUHDWLRQDUHDZLOGOLIH

RU ZDWHUIRZO UHIXJH RU KLVWRULF VLWH WKDW SURMHFW PD\ RQO\ SURFHHG XSRQ D

VKRZLQJWKDWWKHUHLVQRSUXGHQWDQGIHDVLEOHDOWHUQDWLYHWRWKHXVHRIWKDWODQG

DQG D GHPRQVWUDWLRQ WKDW DOO SRVVLEOH SODQQLQJ KDV EHHQ XQGHUWDNHQ WR

PLQLPL]HWKHUHVXOWLQJKDUP

 8QGHU6HFWLRQRIWKH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ$FWLIWKH7UDQVUDSLGSURMHFW

PD\ DGYHUVHO\ LPSDFW D VLWH RI KLVWRULFDO DUFKHRORJLFDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO RU

FXOWXUDOVLJQLILFDQFHWKHSURMHFWVSRQVRUVPXVWFRQVXOWZLWKWKH6WDWH+LVWRULF

3UHVHUYDWLRQ 2IILFHU DQG WKH $GYLVRU\ &RXQFLO RQ +LVWRULF 3UHVHUYDWLRQ WR

GHWHUPLQHKRZEHVWWRDYRLGVXFKLPSDFWV

 8QGHU 6HFWLRQ  RI WKH &OHDQ :DWHU $FW  DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW LPSDFW RI

7UDQVUDSLG RQ ZHWODQGV ZRXOG UHTXLUH D IHGHUDO SHUPLW IURP WKH 86 $UP\

&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV7KLVSHUPLWZRXOGUHTXLUHWKHSODQQHUVRIWKH7UDQVUDSLG

V\VWHPWRVHOHFWWKHDSSURDFKWKDWPLQLPL]HVDGYHUVHLPSDFWVRQZHWODQGV

%HVW 0DQDJHPHQW 3UDFWLFHV ZRXOG EH UHTXLUHG GXULQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH

JXLGHZD\ DQG VWDWLRQV WR DVVXUH WKDW LPSDFWV WR ZHWODQG DQG VWUHDPV DUH

DYRLGHGRUPLQLPL]HGWRWKHPD[LPXPH[WHQWSUDFWLFDO

 8QGHU WKH )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH &RRUGLQDWLRQ $FW LI WKH 7UDQVUDSLG SURMHFW ZLOO

SRWHQWLDOO\LPSDFWQDWXUDOHFRORJLFDOV\VWHPVRUZLOOPRGLI\VWUHDPVRURWKHU

ERGLHVRIZDWHULQVRPHZD\WKHSURMHFWPD\RQO\SURFHHGDIWHUWKHSURMHFW

VSRQVRUV FRQVXOW ZLWK WKH 86 )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH 6HUYLFH DQG VWDWH ZLOGOLIH

DJHQFLHVWRGHWHUPLQHKRZWREHVWPLWLJDWHWKRVHLPSDFWV

$Q\DVVHVVPHQWRIWKHODQGXVHLPSDFWVRIDQHZ7UDQVUDSLG V\VWHPPXVWEH

DGGUHVVHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHVHDQGRWKHUIHGHUDODQGVWDWHODZVGHVLJQHGWRSURWHFW

ODQGXVHVWKDWDUHYDOXHGE\WKHSXEOLF,IVXFKYDOXHVDUHWKUHDWHQHGZLWKLUUHYHUVLEOH

KDUPWKHVHODZVZLOOUHTXLUHWKDWWKHSURSRVHGPDJOHYV\VWHPEHPRGLILHGRUUHORFDWHG

WR DYRLG RU PLQLPL]H VXFK LPSDFWV  $V ZLOO QRZ EH VHHQ 7UDQVUDSLG KDV IDU PRUH

IOH[LELOLW\ WKDQ RWKHU VXUIDFH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ V\VWHPV WR PHHW WKHVH ODQGXVH UHODWHG

UHTXLUHPHQWV

% 7KH'LUHFW/DQG8VH,PSDFWVRI7UDQVUDSLG

/DQGUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU7UDQVUDSLGV\VWHPVZLOOEHUHODWLYHO\PRGHVWEHFDXVHWKH

YHKLFOHVDUHTXLWHQDUURZ0DJOHY¶VHOHYDWHGGXDOJXLGHZD\VKDYHVPDOOIRRWSULQWVDQG

FDQ EH ORFDWHG DORQJ H[LVWLQJ UDLO DQG KLJKZD\ ULJKWVRIZD\ EULQJLQJ PDJOHY YHKLFOHV

GLUHFWO\ LQWR GRZQWRZQ WHUPLQDOV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH GLVUXSWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ ODQG XVH

SDWWHUQV

7UDQVUDSLGJXLGHZD\VFDQHLWKHUEHHOHYDWHGRUFRQVWUXFWHGDWJUDGH,QDUHDV

ZKHUHODQGXVHFRQFHUQVDUHLPSRUWDQWWKLVIHDWXUHJLYHVWKHSODQQHUVRIWKHV\VWHPWKH

IOH[LELOLW\ WR DYRLG LQWHUIHUHQFH ZLWK H[LVWLQJ ODQG XVH SDWWHUQV  E\ FRQVWUXFWLQJ WKH

JXLGHZD\VXSDQGRYHUWKHH[LVWLQJWHUUDLQ$UHDVXQGHUWKHJXLGHZD\VFDQFRQWLQXHWR

EHXVHGIRUDJULFXOWXUHIORRGSODLQGUDLQDJHZHWODQGVDQGZLOGOLIHKDELWDW

0DJOHY V\VWHPV FRQVXPH OHVV ODQG WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU IRUP RI WUDQVSRUW  7KH

HOHYDWHG GRXEOHWUDFN JXLGHZD\ RI 7UDQVUDSLG VSDQV DERXW  IHHW EHWZHHQ VXSSRUWV
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 41

The area required for each support is 900 square feet, more or less, depending on the

load capacity of the ground, leading to an effective land consumption for the elevated

Transrapid of about 1.5m2/m. Land consumption for the at-grade Transrapid is about 12

m2/m, comparing favorably to land requirements of 13.7m2/m for a conventional railway

system and 37.5 m2/m for an interstate highway.

There may be no need for a surface road running alongside the Transrapid after

the guideway is constructed. Access roads should not be necessary for safety reasons,

with the exception of those needed to assure emergency vehicle access to designated

safe stopping zones along the guideway. Nor is a roadway needed for maintenance of

the Transrapid system, since all maintenance can be undertaken from the guideway

itself.

Another important advantage of Transrapid, whether or not the guideway is

elevated, is that the system will not affect the local hydrology. The groundworks

necessary for installing the column foundations are minimal when compared to those

required for roads or railways. For example, in many cases “raft” foundations can be

used which are no deeper than the basement of an average house. Piled foundations will

probably be necessary only in rare situations.

The natural flow of surface water need not be diverted or interrupted by the

guideway, as is the case with roads and railroad tracks. Nor will Transrapid guideways

require the construction of drainage ditches alongside, as do many roads and railways.

Environmentalists have long complained that highway ditches--and the propensity of

landowners to use those ditches for wetlands drainage--are a significant adverse

consequence of new highway projects. Because with Transrapid there is no need for

ditches, there will be no such adverse environmental impacts.

Impacts of Transrapid systems on floodplains can be all but eliminated by raising

the guideway above the 100-year flood elevation. The ease with which flood plain

impacts of maglev systems can be avoided starkly contrasts with conventional railroads,

where track embankments can radically divert the flow of floodwaters.

The Maglev Technical Advisory Committee concluded in 1989 that it is technically

and economically feasible to build maglev systems along existing Interstate highways.64

Accordingly, it has been shown that much of the Transrapid alignment in a given

transportation corridor can be co-located with existing railway or roadway corridors

because of the maglev train’s superior turning and grade-climbing abilities. Transrapid

can also be located along electrical transmission line corridors. Such routing flexibility

with existing highway, rail and utility rights-of-way will help avoid new land use

disruptions.

Compared to other high-speed ground transportation systems, Transrapid is also

quite flexible in the way it can be made compatible with the existing environment.

Because of the superior grade-climbing ability of maglev trains, it is relatively easy to

blend a Transrapid guideway into an existing landscape. Thus, Transrapid should require

far fewer tunnels along a given transportation corridor than would be the case with a

conventional railway system.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 42

C. Indirect Impacts

Although transportation systems and land use are inextricably linked, historically

there has been little recognition of the importance of transportation planning in shaping

land development patterns.

In 1991, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. surveyed the land use forecasting

procedures utilized in this country’s major metropolitan areas. The study’s authors

concluded that those procedures had changed little over the previous 20 years.65 They

found that only two of the cities studied used available models for forecasting the effects

of transportation systems on urban development, and the two cities that did so failed to

use the models correctly.

This shortsightedness in transportation planning appears to be changing. As the

FRA’s Office of Policy has noted, “the role of transportation in shaping development

patterns, has begun to focus attention on the need to integrate transportation and land

use planning.”66 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the

first time requires that transportation planning be integrated with the urban planning

process and consider the land use impacts of any new transportation project.

As noted above, Transrapid may well be unique among modern transportation

systems in its ability to accommodate existing land use patterns. But what about the

potential for Transrapid to actually shape those patterns? Because of the importance of

such indirect land use impacts of transportation projects, no assessment of the

environmental effects of Transrapid or any other transportation system would be

complete without some discussion of those impacts.

1. Urban Sprawl

The promotion of urban sprawl is an indirect land use impact of new

transportation systems that has attracted considerable attention over the past decade.

The potential for unplanned sprawl development to compromise valued land uses, such a

wildlife habitat, open space, forested areas, parks, agricultural lands and wetlands is well

known. Urban sprawl also tends to increase dependency on automobile travel with all of

its attendant problems of traffic congestion, increased reliance on foreign oil, more

highway accidents and deteriorating air quality.

Accordingly, determining how high-speed maglev trains will affect urban sprawl is

an important issue. Some observers have suggested that once high-speed trains begin

to proliferate, they will spawn sprawling mega-cities. For example, Cesare Marchetti, a

scientist at Vienna’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, has predicted

that maglev technology will increase the size of our larger cities by five to six times over

the next century.67 Marchetti argues that historically human settlements have grown

exponentially in relation to the distance an individual can travel in one hour. Hence, Berlin

was three miles across in 1800, based on the speed with which people walked. By 1997,

Berlin had grown to be 25 miles across, largely because of the introduction of

automobiles. With the introduction of high-speed maglev trains, Marchetti envisions a

Berlin that is 125 miles across with a population of over 100 million.

Whether maglev trains will spawn such mega-cities is highly debatable. For one

thing, trains like Transrapid are designed to link cities together, not to provide for mass

transport within a single city. The sprawling city of the future envisioned by Marchetti

suggests there would be numerous station stops within one metropolitan area served by

high-speed maglev trains. However, such frequent stops would defeat the primary
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 43

purpose of such trains-to move people rapidly between cities that are hundreds of miles

apart. Indeed, studies have shown that the time advantage of maglev trains over high

speed railroad trains begins to disappear as stops along the way become too frequent

and close together, thereby decreasing maglev’s speed advantage to the point where it

may no longer make economic sense when compared to conventional passenger trains

or other mass transits systems.

As was the case with conventional railway stations in the past, Transrapid

stations should serve as hubs for new urban development. To maximize the travel time

benefits of Transrapid, stations along a guideway should be relatively few and far

between. Consequently, unlike the way highways can promote sprawl development all

along the entire length of a new corridor (and especially at major intersections),

Transrapid stations can be utilized by urban planners to create concentrated areas of

residential and commercial development around stations that are relatively distant from

one another. In short, rather than promoting sprawl development, a Transrapid system

can be designed to promote concentrated development, particularly in the hands of

creative community planners.

2. Less Airport and Highway Construction

Air passenger capacities projected for the 21st century are too extensive for even

improved airports to accommodate. The expansion of many air terminals to serve this

projected air traffic will require the development of extensive tracts of premium real

estate. Although generally considered less land-intensive than linear modes of

transportation, airports require major commitments of land. For example, according to

the NMI Report, Los Angeles International Airport occupies a land area comparable to that

required for a maglev corridor from Los Angeles to San Francisco, and JFK International

occupies an area comparable to that required for a maglev corridor from Boston to

Washington, D.C.

The NMI Report concludes that maglev offers an economically comparable

option, in terms of land development needs, to airport expansion.

IX. IMPACTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA

Much of the above discussion of the direct and indirect land use impacts of

Transrapid systems is relevant to an assessment of the effects of these new trains on

plants and wildlife. The types of wildlife habitats that will be traversed by Transrapid

systems depend, of course, on the transportation corridor selected. In most cases, the

effects of a new Transrapid system on these habitats, and the wildlife that utilize them,

should be minor and temporary.

As we have seen, natural drainage patterns need not be disrupted by Transrapid

guideways, even for at-grade systems. Where necessary, Transrapid guideways can be

elevated to further minimize the impact on sensitive habitat. Grasslands, wetlands, and

agricultural lands, after being temporarily disrupted by the construction of the guideways,

will be allowed to return to their normal vegetative states, even within corridors and under

guideways. With elevated maglev systems, wildlife can pass from one side of the

guideway to the other relatively freely -- a major advantage over most highways and

conventional railroads. The NRC Report notes that an important advantage of elevated

high speed trains is that they would not fragment local habitats.68 Such fragmenting

disturbs the environment of both plants and animals and can have adverse

consequences for the health and survival of indigenous species.69
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 44

Although noise criteria for high-speed train effects on wildlife have not been

established, the FRA procedures use an interim criterion based on the single event noise

descriptor (SEL). The interim criterion indicates a potential impact when the SEL is 100

dBA or higher–a noise intensity Transrapid would rarely generate.

A permanent impact of a Transrapid system would be the removal of trees from

the guideway right-of-way. Trees that might interfere with the train operation would not be

allowed to grow under or near the guideway. However, if forested habitat is considered of

high ecological value, efforts can be made to route guideways around such

environmentally sensitive areas.

X. ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Transportation accounts for at least two-thirds of the oil consumed in this

country.70 Transportation alone consumes more petroleum than the U.S. produces and

more than the U.S. imports each year.71 According to the Congressional Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA), the average American citizen uses five times as much

energy for transportation as the average Japanese citizen and nearly three times as

much as the average citizen of Western Europe.72

Americans consume more than one-third of the entire world’s transportation

energy, even though they account for only 4.7 percent of the world’s population.73

Moreover, transportation-related energy consumption in this country is growing rapidly.

One of the most conservative forecasts, by the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

Information Administration, projects that transportation-related energy consumption will

grow 30 percent by the year 2015.74 This prediction assumes that fuel efficiency of

motor vehicles will continue to improve, but that these improvements will be

overwhelmed by increases in both the number of vehicle trips taken and the average trip

length. OTA believes these Energy Department predictions may actually prove to be too

low. According to OTA, without substantial policy intervention, future rates of travel are

quite likely to be higher and efficiency lower than DOE projects, with a resulting greater

increase in transportation energy use than the projected levels.75

As petroleum consumption in the U.S. grows, primarily due to the growth in

petroleum-based transportation systems, this country will become even more dependent

on foreign oil producers, many of whom do not share our political or economic interests.

The amount of oil imported by the United States is now approaching 50% of our total

consumption—a greater percentage than Americans were consuming at the time of the

energy crisis of the mid-1970s.

Moreover, as noted above, there is now convincing evidence that growing rates of

atmospheric carbon emissions, a major source of which is gasoline combustion, are

producing a global climate change that could jeopardize human health and global

ecosystems. The ability of the United States to take a lead role in reducing worldwide

emissions of greenhouse gases will no doubt be compromised if this country is unwilling-

-or unable--to stem the rapid increase in motor vehicle use projected over the next two

decades.

Our country’s appetite for oil is primarily due to its appetite for travel and the fact

that when Americans do travel they prefer, or are compelled, to travel in automobiles.

Nearly 70% of the projected increase in petroleum consumption in this country by the

year 2015 will be related to transportation, and the lion’s share of that increase will be due

to automobile transportation.76
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 45

As a matter of sound public policy, any new transportation system that reduces

our dependence on petroleum, and on fossil fuels in general, should be encouraged.

Maglev is by no means a complete solution to our over-dependence on fossil-fuel-based

travel, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Perhaps most importantly, the

promotion of maglev travel in this country will send an important message to the rest of

the world that the United States intends to assume a leadership role in promoting less

petroleum consumption and greater use of “green power.”

Maglev will be virtually independent of petroleum-based fuels, so that maglev

networks will help lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil for its travel needs. Based on

simulations of maglev operations in 11 of 16 corridors studied, the NMI Report concluded

that average maglev energy consumption will be about one-half of that of air travel for a

600-mile trip of comparable air time. For shorter distances, maglev’s energy and time

advantages increase dramatically. For a 125-mile trip, maglev will consume about one

quarter of the energy needed for shorthaul air travel, while completing the trip in 15

percent less time.77 In corridors where most of the ridership will be diverted from aircraft,

potential energy and petroleum savings tend to be the greatest.

In sum, Transrapid can offer trip times that are far shorter than highway travel,

and competitive with air travel, for a small fraction of the energy consumed by

automobiles and aircraft.

XI. CONCLUSIONS

After decades of study and applied engineering coupled with full-scale testing,

Transrapid maglev trains offer potential benefits to human health, safety, convenience

and comfort. Moreover, Transrapid promises to be one of the most environmentallyfriendly systems of transport ever devised in terms of air quality, compatibility with

existing land uses, energy efficiency, and noise acceptability.

The apparent lack of adverse human health and environmental impacts from

Transrapid maglev trains, especially when compared to other transportation modes,

should be an important factor in any decision to build or expand passenger transportation

systems, particularly in corridors that are now served by short-range (100- to 600-mile)

airways and inter-city highways.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 46

 

Footnotes

1

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, In Pursuit of Speed, New

Options for Intercity Passenger Transport, Special Report No. 233 (1991) (“NRC Study”).

2

 Surface Transportation Policy Project: Why Are the Roads So Congested? A

Companion Analysis of the Texas Transportation Institutes Data on Metropolitan

Congestion (Nov. 16, 1999).

3

 Surface Transportation Policy Project, Traffic Congestion Driven by Sprawl, press

release on Nov. 16, 1999.

4 Report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maglev for the United States (Nov. 1993)

(“COE Maglev Study”), Ch. 1 p.2 of 6.

5

 National Transportation Library, Final Report on the National Maglev Initiative(“NMI

Report”).

6

Intermodol Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Pub. L.No. 102-240,

105 Stat. 1914.

7

 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub. L.No. 105-178, 112 Stat.

107.

8 Wertheimer N. and Leeper, Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer.

American Journal of Epidemiology, 109 (3): 273-84 (1979).

9

 Murray, German Greens Go Off the Rails , The European, (5-18-98); Sipress, HighSpeed Rail Makes Stride; Maryland to Share in U.S. Funds to Study ‘Maglev’’

Technology, The Washington Post, May 22, 1999.’

10 United States Department of Transportation, Office of Research and Development,

Broadband Magnetic Fields, Their Possible Role in EMF-Associated Bioeffects, Final

Report, Aug. 1993 (“Broadband Study”).

11http:\\www.nichs.nih.sov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter2.htme

12 Feychting and Anders, Magnetic Fields and Cancer in People Residing Near Swedish

High Voltage Power Lines, Institute for Miljomedicin, 1992.

13 Delpizzo, Salzberg, and Farish, The Use of ‘Spot’ Measurements in Epidemiological

Studies of Health Effects of Magnetic Field Exposure, International Journal of

Epidemiology, 20,1991 pp. 448-455.

14 Broadband Study p. 2-11.

15 Id. p. 2-13.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 47

 

16 Id. p. 2-16.

17 Id. p. 7-27, fn. 56.

18 Id.

19 Id. p. 7-28.

20 Id. p. 8-9.

21 Id. p. 3-11.

22 United States Dept. of Transportation, Office of Research and Development, EMF

Exposure Environments, Summary Report, Aug. 1993 (“Summary Report”).

23 Id p. 5-2.

24 Id. p. 5-1.

25 Id. p. 6-1.

26 Id. p. xi/xii.

27 Broadband Study p. 8-9.

28 Electric Research Management Inc., Magnetic Field Testing of the TR07 Maglev

Vehicle and System--Volume 1 - Analysis prepared for Federal Railroad Administration

Contract No. DTFR 53-91-C-0047 (April 1992) (“ERM Study”) p. 1.

29 Id. p. 1-6.

30 Id. p. 1-5 to 1-7.

31 Id.

32 Id. p. 1-8.

33 Groh, The Biological Effects of Maglev Magnetic Field Exposures, Final Report, Aug.

1993 (“Groh Study”).

34 Id.

35 Id. p. 4-4.

36 Id. p. 5-4.

37 United States Department of Transportation, Noise from High Speed Maglev

Systems, January 1993.

38 NMI Report p. 16/29.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 48

 

39 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, High

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Dec. 1998.

(“1998 DOT Study”).

40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers of the Contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC

Second Assessment Report, 1995.

46

 Zegras and Guruswamy, Transport Modeling for Energy & Environment: United

States Experience and Relevance to the Developing World, April 1995.

47 NMI Report p. 3-3.

48 United States Department of Transportation, Safety of High Speed Magnetic Levitation

Systems, German High-Speed Maglev Train Safety Requirements--Potential for

Application in the United States, Interim Report, Feb. 1992 (“Volpe Study”), p. 2-5.

49 Id. p. 1-4.

50 Id. p. 1-1.

51 Id. p. 10-1

52 Id.

53 U.S. Department of Transportation, Preliminary Safety Review of the Transrapid

Maglev System, Nov. 1990.

54 NRC Study p. 122.

55 Id. p. 123.

56 National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4371 et. seq.

57 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts, FRA Docket No. EP-1, Notice 5, effective May 26,

1999, Sec. 14(n)(15)).

58 16 U.S.C. § 1536.

59 49 U.S.C. § 303 (c).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 49

 

60 16 U.S.C. § 470.

61 33 U.S.C. § 1344.

62 16 U.S.C. § 662(a).

63 NMI Report p. 13/29.

64 The Maglev Technical Advisory Committee, Benefits of Magnetically Levitated HighSpeed Transportation for the United States. Vol. 1--Executive Report, Reporting to the

United States Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 1989.

65 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality

Connection: Modelling Practices: Vol. 1. 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1991.

66 Transportation and the Environment: An Annotated Bibliography, Office of Policy,

Federal Railroad Administration, p. 30.

67 Time Magazine, Special Report, The Coming Rail Revolution, June 16, 1997.

68 NRC Report p. 126.

69 DeSanto and Smith, External Benefits of High Speed Surface Transportation: Habitat

Preservations, Environmental Management, 1991.

70 Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1996

(DOE/EIA - 0383 (96) 48, January 1996 (“DOE Outlook”).

71 Id. p. 70.

72 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation

(Summary), 1994 (“OTA Report”).

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 DOE Energy Outlook, p. 118-19.

77 NMI Report p. 8/8.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

C - 50

 

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

D - 1

APPENDIX D – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Action Alternative - An alternative which proposes some management action, as

contrasted to the No-Action Alternative.

Actual Use - The amount of use that actually occurred.

Affected Environment – The physical, biological, social and economic

environment within which human activity is proposed.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - The ADA sets legal requirements for

accessibility.

Authorized Use - Activities and amount of use approved by the authorized officer.

Approval can be granted by issuance of a permit or approval of an annual

itinerary, operating plan including amendments thereof associated with a permit.

Carrying Capacity - The number of recreationists that can be accommodated in a

specific area based on ecological, physical, facility, and/or social factors.

Commercial Use or Activity - Any use or activity on National Forest System

lands where (a) an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) the primary purpose

is the sale of good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or

activity is intended to produce a profit.

Construction - Any activity that directly alters the environment, excluding

surveying or mapping.

Cumulative Effects - Effects resulting from a project and other past, present and

reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Disturbance - A discrete event, either natural or human induced, that causes a

change in the condition of an ecological system.

Ecosystem - A system formed by the interaction of living organisms, including

people, with their environment. Spatially, ecosystems are described for areas in

which ft is meaningful to talk about these relationships.

Endangered Species - Any species listed under the Endangered Species Act which

is in danger of or threatened with extinction throughout all or most of its range.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - An environmental analysis, as required

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for proposed federal actions

that may have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (40

CFR 1502.3).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

D - 2

Ethnographic - The anthropological study of societies that are still in existence.

Generally, the observation and organized description of current human behavior

or behavior that is remembered by living people.

Expansion - A facility's capability to produce or operate beyond its existing

capacity, excluding repairs or renovations that do not increase capacity.

Habitat - The natural environment of a plant or animal.

Heritage Resources - Formally known as cultural resources. These resources are

the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are

valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. Heritage

resources include, but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, district, and

objects associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities

and events.

Historic Site - Site or activity area associated with non-indigenous peoples.

Indicator - A specific measurement used to gage a resource or social condition.

Indigenous Species - Any species of flora or fauna that naturally occurs in a

wilderness areas and that was not introduced by humans.

Indirect Effects - Those effects occurring at a later time or at some distance from

the triggering action.

Memorandum of Understanding - A memorandum of understanding developed

between tow or more agencies to document areas of agreement on topics of

mutual concern.

Mitigate - Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse

impact of a management practice.

Monitoring - The collection of information to determine the effects of resource

management and to identify changing resource conditions or needs.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Legislation declaring the productive

harmony with nature, and protection of the environment, to be national policy.

NEPA provides for analyzing the environmental consequences of proposed

management actions on all National Forest System lands, including management

actions taken in wilderness.

National Register of Historic Places - A listing maintained by the USDI, National

Park Service of areas which have been designated as historically significant. The

Register includes places of local and State significance, as well as those of value

to the nation in general.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

D - 3

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) – Wetland area was calculated using existing

NWI maps. The wetland assessment of the corridor included an evaluation of

wetland types, area, and funcitons and values of the wetland systems.

National Wild and Scenic River System - Rivers with outstanding remarkable

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar

values designated by Congress under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for

preservation of their free-flowing condition.

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) - All lands covered by the

Wilderness Act and all subsequent designations, irrespective of the department or

agency having jurisdiction.

Native Species - Any species of flora or fauna that naturally occurs in the United

States and that was not introduced by humans.

Nonconforming Uses - Uses that do not conform to wilderness, as defined by the

Wilderness Act, but which are allowed to occur by law as special provisions.

Examples are livestock grazing, mining, and the use of motorized equipment for

trail maintenance.

Nonpoint Source Pollution - Water pollution that cannot be traced to a single

source, such as a factory, but collects from a wide area. Examples would include

pesticide or fertilizer that ends up in rivers or lakes, or percolates through the soil

into groundwater.

Notice of Intent - A notice published in the Federal Register to announce the

description and nature of a proposed action, estimated date for filing a draft or

final EIS, and the reviewers obligation to comment. NOIs are legally required for

an EIS (40 CFR 1508.22).

Preferred Alternative - The alternative identified as being preferred by the agency.

Prehistoric Site - Site or activity area associated with indigenous peoples.

Record of Decision (ROD) - The portion of a Final Environmental Impact

Statement that identifies the proposed action, signed by the appropriate deciding

officer.

Riparian - The land and vegetation immediately adjacent to a body of water, such

as a stream, lake, or river; such vegetation depends upon a perpetual source of

water.

Scoping - Determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the

significant issues related to a proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7) Process to

identify what potential environmental impacts, alternatives and other issues will

be addressed in the EIS.

Sensitive Species - Those species on an official state list or recognized by the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

D - 4

Regional Forester, needing special management to prevent them from becoming

endangered or threatened.

Standards - Quantitative ideals for social and physical conditions that describe

acceptable and appropriate conditions for indicators.

Visual Quality - Scenic attributes of landscapes that elicit psychological and

physiological benefits to humans.

Watershed - The entire area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.

Portion of the forest in which all surface waters drain to a common point.

Wetland - Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency

sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life dependent upon the

water for growth and reproduction.

Wind Energy Conversion System - A collection of tall windmills placed in an

area that has suitable winds of consistent speeds, such as a prairie or ridge. As the

wind turns the blades, the motion drives a generator that creates electricity.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 1

APPENDIX E – ACRONYMS, SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

A Ampere

ac Acre

AC Alternating Current

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act

ADF Automatic Direction Finder

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

ARC Atlantic Regional Commission

ASA Architecturally-Sensitive Area

ATM Automatic Teller Machine

ATSF Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe

BARC Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

BGE Baltimore Gas and Electric

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

BTU British Thermal Unit

BW Baltimore-Washington

BWI Baltimore-Washington International Airport

C Centigrade

CARB California Air Resources Board

CARL Florida Conservation and Recreation Land

CARTA Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority

CAT Citizen’s Area Transit

CBD Central Business District

CBTC Communications-Based Train Control

CCT Cobb Community Transit

CDRH Center for Devices and Radiologic Health

CEC California Energy Commission

CEQ Counsel on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CM Centimeter

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

CMS Congestion-Management System

CO Carbon Monoxide

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

CZM Coastal Zone Management

DC Direct Current

DCA Ronald Reagan International Airport

DNR Department of Natural Resources
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 2

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environment Assessment

E1EM Estuarine Sub-Tidal Emergent

E2EM Estuarine Inter-Tidal Emergent

ECAR East Central Area Coordination Region

EDF Environmental Defense Fund

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

ELF Extremely Low Frequency

EM Electromagnetic

EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility

EMF Electromagnetic Fields

EMI Electromagnetic Interference

EMR Electromagnetic Radiation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPD Environmental Protection Division

ESD Electrodynamically Suspended

ESD Electrostatic Discharge

ESH Environment, Safety and Health

F Fahrenheit

f Frequency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FEC Florida East Coast

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Maps

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIDS Forest-Interior-Dwelling-Species

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FP&L Florida Power and Light Company

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

ft Foot

FTA Federal Transit Administration

G Gauss

Gal Gallon

GEMS Gulf Coast Ecologist Management Sites

GPS Global Positioning System

GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

ha Hectare

HABS Historic Building Survey
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 3

HAER Historic American Engineering Record

HAIA Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

HF High Frequency

HSGT High-Speed Ground Transportation

HSR High-Speed Rail

HU Habitat Unit

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

Hz Hertz

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

IAD Dulles International Airport

ICE Intercity Express

IN Inch

IRL Indian River Lagoon

JeT Jefferson Transit-East Bank

KCS Kansas City Southern

Kg Kilograms

Km Kilometers

Km/h Kilometers per Hour

Km/l Kilometers per Liter

KSC Kennedy Space Center

kV Kilovolt

kW/h Kilowatt Hours

L Liters

Lb Pound

LAX Los Angeles International Airport

LOS Level-of-service

LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas

LSM Linear Synchronous Motor

M Meter

Maglev Magnetic Levitation

MAP Millions-of-air-passengers

MARC Maryland Rail Commuter

MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

MD DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources

MG Milli-Gauss

Mg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter

Mi Miles

MINWR Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

MJ Megajoules

MPG Miles per Gallon

MPH Miles per Hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTA Maryland Mass Transit Administration

MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 4

MW MegaQatt

NAA Non-Attainment Areas

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCPC National Capital Planning Commission

NDDB Natural Diversity Database

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation

NEC Northeast Corridor

NECIP Northeast Corridor Improvement Project

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NOAB New Orleans Aviation Board

NOIA New Orleans International Airport

NOx Nitrogen Oxide

NPC Nevada Power Company

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wildlife Inventory

NWI National Wildlife Inventory

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OCS Overhead Catenary System

OFW Outstanding Florida Waters

ONT Ontario International Airport

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAAC Port Authority of Allegheny County

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company

PFA Priority Funding Area

PFO Palustrine Forested

PIT Pittsburgh International Airport

PJM Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland

PM Particulate Micrometers

PPM Parts Per Million

PTC Positive Train Control

PTG Parsons Transportation Group

PWRC Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RF Radio Frequency

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

RPS Regional Planning Commission
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 5

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration

RTA Regional Transportation Authority

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RV Recreational Vehicle

SACP Safety Assurance and Compliance Program

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCR Silicon Controlled Rectifier

SCRA Space Coast Regional Airport

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SHE Safety, Health and Environment

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SPC Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission

SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle

SR State Route

STP Surface Transportation Program

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

T Tesla

T&D Transportation and Distribution

TEA Transportation Equity Act

TGV Train a Grande Vitesse

TRB Transportation Research Board

TRI Transrapid International

TSM Transportation System Management

 ̃g/m 3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter

UHF Ultra High Frequency

UP Union Pacific

USC United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

V Volt

VHF Very High Frequency

VKT Vehicle-Kilometers Traveled

VMT Vehicle-Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

VOR Very High Frequency Omni-Range

VSR Visually Sensitive Receptor

VVVR Variable Voltage Vehicle Frequency

WHO World Health Organization

WMA Wildlife Management Areas

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

WSSC Wetlands of Special State Concern

WSSC Wetlands of Special State Concern
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

E - 6

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

F - 1

APPENDIX F – NOTICE OF INTENT

[Federal Register: December 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 249)]

[Notices]

[Page 73117-73118]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr29de99-162]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Maglev Deployment Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA will prepare a

programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for the Maglev Deployment

Program, to solicit public and agency input into the development of the scope of that

PEIS, and to advise the public that outreach activities conducted by the program

participants will be considered in the preparation of the PEIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the

programmatic environmental review, please contact: David Valenstein, Environmental

Program Manager, Office of Passenger Programs, Federal Railroad Administration (RDV

10), 400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 20), Washington, D.C. 20590, (telephone 202

493-6368). For information regarding the Maglev Deployment Program, please contact:

Arnold Kupferman, Maglev Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal

Railroad Administration (RDV-2), 400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 20), Washington,

D.C. 20590, (telephone 202 493-6370). For further information regarding any of the

individual projects, please contact the applicant representatives identified below under

the Alternative Sites heading.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 1218 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) added

section 322 to title 23 of the United States Code. Section 322 provides a total of $55

million for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001 for transportation systems employing

magnetic levitation (``Maglev'') and an authorization of appropriations for an additional

$950 million over Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003. Responsibility for implementing the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

F - 2

program has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Federal Railroad

Administrator. Section 322 requires FRA to establish project selection criteria, to solicit

applications for funding, to select one or more projects to receive financial assistance for

preconstruction planning activities, and, after completion of such activities, to provide

financial assistance for final design, engineering, and construction activities leading to

the implementation of a maglev deployment project.

 FRA has determined that implementing the maglev deployment program is a major

Federal action with the potential to significantly impact the human environment. As a

consequence, FRA is initiating the preparation of an EIS as required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the regulations

of the President's Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500

et seq.). FRA intends to prepare a programmatic EIS (PEIS) to address the selection

process and the potential for significant environmental impact from the maglev

deployment program. The agency will prepare additional site specific environmental

reviews, as appropriate, as the program progresses.

The Environmental Review Process

As provided for in 23 U.S.C. 322, FRA has initiated a competition to select a project for

the purpose of demonstrating the use of maglev technology to the American public.

Using criteria specified in section 322, FRA has selected seven projects, sponsored by

States or their designated agencies, to receive preconstruction planning grants. As a part

of the preconstruction planning effort, FRA has required the seven applicants to prepare

environmental assessments and conduct public involvement and scoping activities for

their respective project proposals. FRA will use these individual project environmental

assessments and records of agency and public comment and participation in preparing the

PEIS, which will be made available to the public for comment. FRA anticipates issuing a

draft EIS in the summer of 2000. After reviewing comments on the draft PEIS, FRA will

prepare a final PEIS that addresses these comments and incorporates any additional

analyses and material deemed necessary. The final PEIS will be made available for

public review for not less than 30 days before FRA takes any final action on the program.

[[Page 73118]]

Alternatives Sites

The following applicants and projects (with identified applicant representatives) were

selected by the Secretary to receive preconstruction planning assistance and represent the

range of potential program alternatives:

§ Port Authority of Allegheny County: A 45-mile project linking Pittsburgh

Airport to Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs (Mr. Bruce W. Ahern, Port

Authority of Allegheny County, 2235 Beaver Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA

15233-1080, telephone 412-237-6121).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

F - 3

§ Maryland Department of Transportation: A 40-mile project linking

Camden Yard in Baltimore and Baltimore-Washington International

Airport to Union Station in Washington, D.C. (Mr. Suhair Alkhatib,

Maryland Mass Transit Administration, William Donald Schafer Tower, 6

St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202-1614, telephone 410-767-3751).

§ California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission: A 42-mile project

linking Las Vegas to Primm, Nevada (Ms. Richann Johnson, Executive

Assistant, California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, 400 Las

Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, telephone 702-229-6551).

§ Florida Department of Transportation: A 20-mile project linking Port

Canaveral to the Space Center and the Titusville Regional Airport (Mr.

Nazih K. Haddad, Manager, Intercity Passenger Rail, Florida Department

of Transportation, 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57, Tallahassee, FL

32399-0450, telephone 850-414-4534).

§ Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission: A 40-mile project linking

New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal to the airport and across Lake

Ponchartrain to the northern suburbs (Mr. Bryan Clement, Greater New

Orleans Expressway Commission, 3943 N. Causeway Blvd., Metairie, LA

70002, telephone 504-835-3116).

§ Georgia/Atlanta Regional Commission: First 40 miles of 110-mile project

from Atlanta to Chattanooga, TN. (Mr. Robert McCord, Maglev Project

Manager, The Atlanta Regional Commission, 40 Courtland Street, NE,

Atlanta, GA 30303, telephone 404-463-3253).

§ State of California: A 70-to 75-mile system connecting Los Angeles

International Airport to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to

Ontario Airport and further east into Riverside County (Mr. Albert Perdon,

Maglev Project Director, Albert Perdon & Associates, 12748 Castleford

Lane, Cerritos, CA 90703, telephone 310-871-1113).

Scoping and Comments

FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during scoping and review of the

resulting environmental documents. Comments and suggestions are invited from all

interested agencies and the public at large to insure the full range of issues related to the

proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant issues are

identified. In particular, FRA is interested in determining whether there are areas of

national environmental concern where there might be the potential for significant

impacts, either adverse or favorable, as a result of advancing the maglev deployment

program. Because the applicants are required to conduct public outreach as part of their

preparation of environmental assessments, FRA does not plan to hold public scoping

meetings. The applicants are responsible for contacting appropriate Federal, State, and

local agencies, private organizations and citizens to solicit input regarding their

respective program alternatives. Persons interested in providing comments on the scope

of the programmatic environmental document should do so by February 18, 2000.

Comments can be sent in writing to Mr. David Valenstein at the address identified above.

Persons interested in providing comments on issues of environmental concern with

respect to any of the individual projects should contact the applicant representatives
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

F - 4

identified above. FRA has in place a Maglev Deployment Program page

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/maglev.htm) on the agency's Internet site where the public

can obtain additional information related to the Maglev Deployment Program. FRA also

intends to establish a separate page on the agency's site specifically addressing the

environmental impact statement process for the Maglev Deployment Program.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on: December 20, 1999.

Arrigo P. Mongini, Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Development.

[FR Doc. 99-33788 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 1

APPENDIX G – LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE PEIS

Washington Agencies

Mr. Joseph Montgomery

Director, NEPA Compliance

Division

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Ariel Ross Building

Room 7241

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20004

Mr. Ken Mittelholtz

Office of Federal Activities

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Ariel Ross Building

Room 2252A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Woodie Woodward

Acting Associate Administrator

for Airports

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Office Building 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591-0001

Ms. Cynthia J. Burbank

Program Manager, Planning and

Environment

Federal Highway Administration

Nassif Building, Room 3212

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Charlotte M. Adams

Associate Administrator for

Planning

Federal Transit Administration

Nassif Building

Room 9413, TPL-1

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Mr. Larry E. Nake

Executive Director

National Association of Counties

440 First Street, NW, 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Mr. Thomas R. Warne

President

American Association of State

Highway and Transportation

Officials

444 North Capitol Street, NW

Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

Mr. Edward R. Hamberger

President and Chief Executive

Officer

Association of American

Railroads

50 F Street, NW, 12th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Mr. Frank K. Turner

President

American Short Line Railroad

Association

1120 G Street, NW, Suite 520

Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Robert Matthews

President

Railway Progress Institute

700 North Fairfax Street

Suite 601

Alexandria, VA 22314-2098

Mr. Donald J. Borut

Executive Director

National League of Cities

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Mr. J. Thomas Cochran

Executive Director

The U.S. Conference of Mayors

1620 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Mr. William R. Dodge

Executive Director

National Association of Regional

Councils

1700 K Street, NW, Suite 1300

Washington, DC 20006

M. John Berry

U.S. Department of the Interior

1849 C. Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 2

California

Federal Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Los Angeles District

P.O. Box 53271

Los Angeles, CA 90053

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

U. S. Department of the Interior

600 Harrison Street, Suite 515

San Francisco, CA 94104

National Park Service

Pacific West Region

600 Harrison Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94107

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Field Office

2730 Locker Avenue, West

Carlsbad, CA 92008

U.S. Department of

Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Western Pacific Region H.Q.

Quality and Environment

World Way Postal Center

Box 92007

Los Angeles, CA 90009

Federal Highway Administration

Western Resource Center

201 Mission Street, Suite 2100

San Francisco, CA 94105

Federal Railroad Administration

Riverside Field Office

1770 Iowa Avenue, Suite 230

Riverside, CA 92507

Federal Transit Administration

Regional Office

21 Main Street, Suite 2210

San Francisco, CA 94105

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation

Denver Office

12136 W. Bajaud Avenue

Suite 330

Lakewood, CO 80228

Senators and Representatives

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

United States Senate

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1748

Los Angeles, CA 90012

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

11111 Santa Monica Boulevard

Suite 915

Los Angeles, CA 90025

The Honorable Maxine Waters

U.S. House of Representatives

10124 S. Broadway

Suite 1

Los Angeles, CA 90003

The Honorable Steven Kuyendall

U.S. House of Representatives

21311 Hawthorne Boulevard

Suite 250

Torrance, CA 90503-5610

The Honorable Juanita MillenderMcDonald

U.S. House of Representatives

970 West 190th Street

East Tower, Suite 900

Torrance, CA 90502

The Honorable Edward R. Royce

U.S. House of Representatives

305 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 300

Fullerton, CA 92832

The Honorable Gary G. Miller

U.S. House of Representatives

22632 Golden Springs Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

The Honorable Ken Calvert

U.S. House of Representatives

3400 Central Avenue

Suite 200

Riverside, CA 92506

Governor

The Honorable Gray Davis

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

State Agencies

California Department of Water

Resources, Southern District

770 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 102

Glendale, CA 91203-1035

South Coast Air Quality

Management District

21865 E. Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Regional Water Quality Control

Board

320 W. 4th Street, Suite 400

Los Angeles, CA 90013

California Business,

Transportation and Housing

Agency

980 Ninth Street, Suite 2450

Sacramento, CA 95814

Caltrans, District 7

120 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Caltrans, District 8

464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400

California Environmental

Protection Agency

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 235

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Air Resources Board

Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 3

State Water Resources Control

Board

901 P Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Los Angeles Regional Water

Control Board

101 Centre Plaza Drive

Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156

California Health and Human

Services Agency

Statewide Health Planning and

Development

1600 Ninth Street, Room 433

Sacramento, CA 95814

Department of Health Services

714/744 P Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

California High Speed Rail

Authority

925 L Street, Suite 1425

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Native American

Heritage Commission

915 Capitol Mall, Room 364

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Resources Agency

1416 Ninth Street, Room 1131

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Coastal Commission

South Coast Area Office

200 Oceangate, 10th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

California Energy Commission

1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Department of Fish and

Game

4949 Viewridge Avenue

San Diego, CA 92123

California Department of Parks

and Recreation

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Environmental Design, Planning,

Acquisition, and Local Services

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

California State Historic

Preservation Officer

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

California Department of Water

Resources

P.O. Box 942836, Room 1115-1

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

State Lands Commission

100 Howe Avenue

Suite 100 South

Sacramento, CA 95285

Environmental Planning and

Management

100 Howe Avenue

Suite 100 South

Sacramento, CA 95285

California Trade and Commerce

Agency

801 K Street, Suite 1700

Sacramento, CA 95814

Regional Agencies

Southern California Association

of Governments

818 W. Seventh Street, 12 Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435

Nina Potter

Cities Council of Governments

2062 New York Drive

Altadena, CA 91001

Gateway Cities Council of

Governments

7300 Alondra Boulevard

Suite103

Fairmont, CA 90723

San Bernardino Associated

Governments

472 N. Arrowhead Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92401

San Gabriel Valley Council of

Governments

3871 E. Colorado Boulevard #101

Pasadena, CA 91107

Westside Cities Council of

Governments

Community Development

Director: Marsha Vrood

9770 Culver Boulevard

Culver City, CA 90232-0507

Mark Winogrond

Chief Administrative Officer

9770 Culver Boulevard

Culver City, CA 90232-0507

Western Riverside Council of

Governments

3880 Lemon Street, Suite300

Riverside, CA 92501

Alameda Corridor Transportation

Authority

One Civic Plaza

Carson, CA 90745

Alameda-East Corridor

Construction Authority

3871 E. Colorado Boulevard

Suite 100

Pasadena, CA 91107

Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway

Office of the Vice President

Environmental and Hazardous

Materials Management

Mark Stahley

NOC, 3rd Floor

2600 Lou Menk Drive

Ft. Worth, TX 76131

Foothill Transit Authority

100 N. Barrabca Avenue

Suite 100

West Covina, CA 91791-1600

Los Angeles to Pasadena Blue

Line Construction Authority

625 S. Fair Oaks Avenue

South Pasadena, CA 91030
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 4

Los Angeles World Airports

Authority

One World Way

Los Angeles, CA 90045

March Joint Powers Authority

P.O. Box 7480

Moreno Valley, CA 92552

Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Omnitrans

1700 W. Fifth Street

San Bernardino, CA 92411

Riverside County Transportation

Department

P.O. Box 1090

Riverside, CA 92502

Riverside Transit Authority

1825 Third Street

Riverside, CA 92507

Southern California Air Quality

Management District

21865 East Copely Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Union Pacific Railroad

1416 Dodge Street

Omaha, NE 68179

Counties

Los Angeles County

Environmental Planning &

Evaluation

2525 Corporate Place

Monterey Park, CA 91754

Riverside County

County Administrative Center

Transportation / Land

Management

4080 Lemon Street

Riverside, CA 92501

San Bernardino County

Planning Department

385 North Arrowhead, 3rd Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182

Cities

City of Alhambra

111 South First Street

Alhambra, CA 91801

City of Arcadia

240 West Huntington Drive

Arcadia, CA 91007

City of Azusa

213 East Foothill Boulevard

Azusa, CA 91702

City of Baldwin Park

14403 East Pacific Avenue

Baldwin Park, CA 91706

City of Bell

6330 Pine Avenue

Bell, CA 90201-1290

City of Chino

13220 Central Avenue

Box 667

Chino, CA 91708-0667

City of Chino Hills

2001 Grand Avenue

Chino Hills, CA 91709

City of Commerce

2535 Commerce Way

Commerce, CA 90040

City of Industry

15651 East Stafford Street

P.O. Box 3366

Industry, CA 91744-0366

City of Claremont

P.O. Box 880

Claremont, CA 91711

City of Colton

650 North La Cadena Drive

Colton, CA 92324

City of Compton

205 South Willowbrook Avenue

Compton, CA 90220

City of Corona

815 West 6th Street

Corona, CA 91720-0090

City of Cudahy

5220 Santa Ana Street

Box 1007

Cudahy, CA 90201

City of Culver City

9770 Culver Boulevard

Box 507

Culver City, CA 90232-0507

City of Diamond Bar

21656 East Copley Drive

Suite 100

Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177

City of Duarte

1600 Huntington Drive

Duarte, CA 91010

City of El Monte

11333 Valley Boulevard

Box 6008

El Monte, CA 91731

City of El Segundo

350 Main Street

El Segundo, CA 90245-0989

City of Fontana

8353 Sierra Avenue

Fontana, CA 92335

City of Gardena

1700 West 162nd Street

Gardena, CA 90247

City of Glendale

613 East Broadway

Glendale, CA 91206

City of Glendora

Glendora City Hall

116 East Foothill Boulevard

Glendora, CA 91741

City of Grand Terrace

22795 Barton Road

Grand Terrace, CA 92324

City of Hawthorne

445 West 126th Street

Hawthorne, CA 90250
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 5

City of Huntington Park

6550 Miles Avenue

Huntington Park, CA 90255-4393

City of Inglewood

One Manchester Boulevard

Inglewood, CA 90301

City of Irwindale

5050 North Irwindale Avenue

Irwindale, CA 91706

City of La Puente

15900 East Main Street

La Puente, CA 91744

City of La Verne

3660 D Street

La Verne, CA 9170-3599

City of Los Angeles

City Hall

200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

City of Lynwood

11330 Bullis Road

Lynwood, CA 90262

City of Maywood

4319 East Slauson Avenue

Maywood, CA 90270

City of Monrovia

415 South Ivy Avenue

Monrovia, CA 91016

626-932-5550

City of Montclair

5111 Benito Street

Montclair, CA 91763

City of Montebello

1600 Beverly Boulevard

Montebello, CA 90640

City of Monterey Park

Municipal Services Center

320 West Newmark Avenue

Monterey Park, CA 91754

City of Moreno Valley

14177 Frederick Street

P.O. Box 88005

Moreni Valley, CA 92552-0805

City of Norco

2870 Clark Avenue

P.O. Box 428

Norco, CA 91760

City of Ontario

303 East B Street

Ontario, CA 91764-4196

City of Pasadena

100 North Garfield Avenue

Box 7115

Pasadena, CA 91109-7215

City of Pico Rivera

6615 Passons Boulevard

Box 1016

Pico Rivera, CA 90660-1016

City of Pomona

505 South Garey Avenue

Box 660

Pomona, CA 91766

City of Rancho Cucamonga

10500 Civic Center Drive

Box 807

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91726-

0807

City of Rialto

150 South Palm Avenue

Rialto, CA 92736

City of Riverside

3900 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92522

City of Rosemead

8838 East Valley Boulevard

Box 399

Rosemead, CA 91770

City of San Bernardino

City Hall

300 North D Street

San Bernardino, CA 92418

City of San Dimas

117 Macneil Street

San Fernando, CA 91340-2993

City of Sierra Madre

232 West Sierra Madre Boulevard

Box 457

Sierra Madre, CA 91204

City of South El Monte

1415 Santa Anita Avenue

South El Monte, CA 91733

City of South Gate

8650 California Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

City of Temple City

9701 Las Tunas Drive

Box 668

Temple City, CA 91780-0668

City of Upland

460 North Euclid Avenue

Box 460

Upland, CA 91785

City of Vernon

4305 Santa Fe Avenue

Vernon, CA 90058-0805

City of Walnut

21201 La Puente Road

P.O. Box 682

Walnut, CA 91788-0682

City of West Covina

1444 West Garvey Avenue

Box 1440

West Covina, CA 91793

Libraries

Anaheim Public Library

500 West Broadway

Anaheim, CA 92805

Arcadia Public Library

20 West Durate Road

Arcadia, CA 92805-3699

Bruggemeyer Memorial Library

318 South Ramona Avenue

Monterey Park, CA 91754
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 6

University Library

Document Section

California State University

Fullerton

P.O. Box 4150

Fullerton, CA 92834

Pearson Library

California Lutheran University

60 West Olsen Road

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Delmar T. Oviatt Library

California State University

Northridge

1811 Nordhoff Street

Northridge, CA 91330

Kennedy Memorial Library

California State University

Los Angeles

5151 State University Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90032-8300

Honnold Mudd Library

Government Publications Dept

Claremont Colleges

800 Dartmouth Street

Claremont, CA 91711-3907

West Covina Public Library

1601 West Covina Parkway

West Covina, CA 91790-2785

Carson Regional Library

Government Publications Unit

151 East Carson Street

Carson, CA 90745

Montebello Regional Library

1550 West Beverly Boulevard

Montebello, CA 90640

Norwalk Regional Library

12350 Imperial Highway

Norwalk, CA 90650-3199

Valencia Library

23743 West Valencia Boulevard

Valencia, CA 91355

Angelo M. Iscoboni Library

4990 Clark Avenue

Lakewood, CA 90712-2676

Culver City Library

Government Documents

4975 Overland Avenue

Culver City, CA 90230

Doheny Memorial Library

USC

Government Documents

MC-0182

University Park

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0182

Garden Grove Regional Library

11200 Stanford Avenue

Garden Grove, CA 92640-5318

Inglewood Public Library

101 W. Manchester Boulevard

Inglewood, CA 90301-1771

Lancaster Public Library

601 W. Lancaster Boulevard

Lancaster, CA 93534

Long Beach Public Library

101 Pacific Avenue

Long Beach, CA 90822-1097

Los Angeles Central Library

Serials Division

630 W. 5th Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2002

Mary Norton Clapp Library

Documents Division

Occidental College

1600 Campus Road

Los Angeles, CA 90041-3392

Ontario City Library

215 East C Street

Ontario, CA 91764

Palm Springs Public Library

Technical Services Section

300 S. Sunrise Way

Palm Springs, CA 92262

Pasadena Public Library

285 East Walnut Street

Pasadena, CA 91101-1598

Payson Library

Pepperdine University

24255 Pacific Coast Highway

Malibu, CA 91263-1771

Riverside City/County Library

3581 Seventh Street

Riverside, CA 92501

San Bernardino County Library

104 W. Fourth Street

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0035

Santa Ana Public Library

Documents Section

26 Civic Center Drive

Santa Ana, CA 92701

School of Law Library

Southwestern University

675 S. Westmoreland Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90005-3992

Torrance Public Library

3301 Torrance Boulevard

Torrance, CA 90503-5013

University Research Library

UCLA

Maps & Government Information

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575

Government Information

Department

University of California Irvine

Campus Drive, Building 102

Irvine, CA 92623

College of Law Library

University of La Verne

1950 Third Street

La Verne, CA 91709-0000

Armacost Library

University of Redlands

1249 East Colton Avenue

Redlands, CA 92374

Rivera Library

University of California Riverside

P.O. Box 5900

Riverside, CA 92517
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 7

E.P. Foster County Library

651 E. Main

Ventura, CA 93002

Wardman Library Government

Documents

Whittier College

13406 East Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90680
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 8

Florida

Federal Agencies

Federal Aviation Administration

5950 Hazeltine National Drive

Suite 400

Orlando, FL 32822

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

3003 Chamblee Tucker Road

Atlanta, GA 30341

Barbara Brown, Chief,

Infomation Officer

Kennedy Space Center

AI

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Denise Coleman, Member

Kennedy Space Center

Community Relations Council

AB-G1

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Charles Griffin, Member

Kennedy Space Center

Community Relations Council

MM-E

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Martha Masiello, Member

Kennedy Space Center

Community Relations Council

Boeing T840

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Charlene Walters, Member

Kennedy Space Center

Community Relations Council

DNPS

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

NASA

John F. Kenneddy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Patrick Air Force Base

45 SVS/SVK 1225 Jupiter Street

Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3341

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

400 West Bay Street

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019

U. S. Coast Guard

909 SE 1st Avenue

Miami, FL 33131

U. S. Department of Commerce -

National Marine Fisheries

Service

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Springs, MD 20910

U. S. Department of Interior

Buerau of Land Management

411 Bliarwood Drive, Suite 404

Jackson, MS 39206

U. S. Department of Interior

National Parks Service

100 Alabama Street, Bldg. 1924

Atlanta, GA 30303

U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Mr. Bertil Heimer

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Division

Atlantic Permits Branch

400 W. Bay Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Mr. J.R. Winslow

United States Coast Guard

Seventh Coast Guard District

Brickell Plaza Federal Building,

909 SE First Avenue

Miami, FL 33131

Alfred F. Ames

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economic Development

Administration

304 North 8th Street, Room 841

Boise, ID 83702

Senators and

Representatives

The Honorable Bob Graham

United States Senate

150 Americas Center

150 Southeast 2nd Avenue

Suite 1025

Miami, FL 33131

The Honorable Connie Mack

United States Senate

777 Brickell Avenue

Suite 704

Miami, FL 33131

The Honorable Dave Weldon

U.S. House of Representatives

2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building C

Melbourne, FL 32940

Governor

The Honorable Jeb Bush

The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399

State Agencies

Florida Department of

Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Virginia Wetherell, Secretary

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Land Use & Biological Services

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

MS 130

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Florida Department of State

PL-02, The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 9

Florida Department of

Transportation-Central Office

605 Suwannee Street

Mail Station 59

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Florida Department of

Transportation-District 5

(Orlando Office)

719 S. Woodland Boulevard

Deland, FL 32720-6834

Florida Department of

Transportation

Orlando Urban Office

5151 Adanson Street

Orlando, FL 32804

Allen Egbert, Executive Director

Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish

Commission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Robert Bradley, Secretary

Florida Land & Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor

The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Florida Transportation

Commission

605 Swuannee Street, M.S.9

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Mr. James Wood

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Office of Siting Coordination

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Mr. Bradley J. Hartman

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Office of Environmental Services

Ferris Bryant Building

620 S. Meridian Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Mr. Sandra Glenn

East Central Florida Regional

Planning Council

1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105

Winter Park, FL 32789

Regional Agencies

East Central Florida Regional

Planning Council

1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105

Winter Park, FL 32789-1797

Economic Development

Commission

of Florida’s Space Coast

57-Y Harvey Court

Rockledge, FL 32955

Bill Stimmel, Executive Director

South Florida Water Management

District

7335 Lake Ellanor Drive

Orlando, FL 32809

Southwest Florida Water

Management District

2379 Broad Street

Brooksville, FL 34609

Space Coast Area Transit

401 South Varr

Cocoa, FL 32922

Space Coast Development

Commission

2000 South Washington Avenue

Titusville, FL 32780-4739

Space Coast Regional Airport

355 Golden Knights Boulevard

Titusville, FL 32780

Egerton K. van den Berg

Executive Director

Orlando International Airport

One Airport Boulevard

Orlando, FL 32827-4399

William T. Hutto, JR.

Executive Director

Titusville-Cocoa Airport

Authority

3355 Golden Knights Boulevard

Titusville, FL 32780

Counties

Brevard County Board of County

Commissioners

2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

or Building C

Viera, FL 32940

Brevard County Metropolitan

Planning Organization

2715 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

or Building A

Viera, FL 32940

Mr. Bob Kamm

Brevard County Metropolitan

Planning Organization

2715 Judge Fran Jamieson Way

Building A

Viera, FL 32940

Cities

City of Cape Canaveral

105 Polk Avenue

P.O. Box 326

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

City of Cocoa

603 Brevard Avenue

Cocoa, FL 32922

City of Cocoa Beach

2 South Orlando Avenue

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931

City of Melbourne

900 East Strawbridge Avenue

Melbourne, FL 32901

City of Palm Bay

120 Malabar Road, SE

Palm Bay, FL 32901

City of Rockledge

916 Brunswick Lane

Rockledge, FL 32955

City of Titusville

P.O. Box 2806

Titusville, FL 32781-2806
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 10

Libraries

Cape Canaveral Public Library

201 Polk Avenue

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Central Brevard Library and

Reference Center

308 Forrest Avenue

Cocoa, FL 32922

Cocoa Beach Public Library

550 North Brevard Avenue

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931

Melbourne Public Library

540 East Fee Avenue

Melbourne, FL 32901

Merritt Island Public Library

1195 North Courtenay Parkway

Merritt Island, FL 32953

South Orange Library

11346 South Orange Blossom

Trail

Orlando, FL 32837

Others

Ron Hight, Refuge Manager

Archie Carr National Wildlife

Refuge

Merritt Island NWR

P.O. Box 6504

Titusville, FL 32782

Thomas Baur, Photographer

Associated Press

P.O. Box 5239

Pompano Beach, FL 33074

Canaveral Port Authority

P.O. Box 267

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of

Commerce

400 Fortenberry Road

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931

Melbourne Airport Authority

One Air Terminal Parkway

Suite 220

Melbourne, FL 32901

Merritt Island Homeowners

Association

1085 Pine Island Road

Merritt Island, FL 32953

Merritt Island National Wildlife

Refuge

P.O. Box 6504

Titusville, FL 32782

John Barnes,

Merritt Island Press

142 S. Courtney Parkway

Merritt Island, FL 32953

Miccosukee Tribal Headquarters

P.O. Box 440021

Tamiami Station

Miami, FL 33144

Seminole Tribal Headquarters

6073 Stirling Road

Hollywood, FL 33024

Pat Joslin, Director

Sierra Club

602 Diane Drive

Melbourne, FL 32935

Martin S. Smithson

Program Director

Indian River Lagoon Program

1900 S. Harbor City Boulevard

Suite 107

Melbourne, FL 32901-4749

St. John's National Wildlife

Refuge

Merritt Island NWR

P.O. Box 6504

Titusville, FL 32782

Titusville Area Chamber of

Commerce

200 South Washington Avenue

Titusvillle, FL 32796

Mr. Harold Barley

Metroplan

315 East Robinson Street

Suite 355

Orlando, FL 32801

1000 Friends of Florida

P.O. Box 5948

Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948

Audubon of Florida

1331 Palmetto Avenue

Winter Park, FL 32789

Defenders of Wildlife

8175 Imber Street

Orlando, FL 32828

Florida Defenders of the

Environment

4424 NW 13th Street, Suite C-8

Gainesville, FL 32609

Florida Wildlife Federation

P.O. Box 6870

Tallahassee, FL 32314-6870

National Wildlife Federation

2590 Golden Gate Parkway

Suite 109

Naples, FL 34105

Sierra Club-Florida Chapter

475 Central Avenue, Suite 1771

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3817

The Nature Conservancy

222 S. Westmonte Drive

Suite 300

Altamonte Springs, FL 32714

Gregory J. Naumovich

Vice President of Technology

Everson Electric Company

2000 City Line Road

Bethlehem, PA 18017-2167

MAGLEV 2000 of Florida

Corporation

Maglev Project Office

6995 Tico Road

Titusville, FL 32780

Frank Kinney, Executive Director

Technological Research and

Development Authority

5195 South Washington Avenue

Titusville, FL 32780
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 11

Nick Witek, President

W&J Construction Corporation

P.O. Box 1779

Cocoa, FL 32923

Todd Drummond, President/CEO

Global Composites, Inc.

11162 New York Street

Bay St. Louis, MS 39520
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 12

Georgia

Federal Agencies

Mr. J. Mich King, Field

Supervisor

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

4270 Norwick Street

Brunswick, GA 31520

Mr. Todd Davison

Mitigation Division: FEMA

3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road

Atlanta, GA 30341

Mr. J. Larry Dreihaup

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

Suite 17T100

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Mr. Gary Jensen, Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

Tennessee Division

640 Grassmere Park

Nashville, TN 37211

Mr. Alex McNeil, FTA

Reg. IV, Atlanta Fed. Ctr.

51 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 17T

Atlanta, GA 30163-1001

Ms. Susan E Schruth

Regional Administrator

FTA Region IV

61 Forsyth Street SW

Suite 17T50

Atlanta, GA 30303

Mr. Tom Brown

Assoc. Regional Dir.

Natl. Park Service/

U.S. Dept. of the Interior

100 Alabama Street

1924 Boulevard

 Suite 6R10

Atlanta, GA 30303

Mr. Earl Cosby

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Federal Building

355 East Hancock Avenue

Athens, GA 30601

Mr. Kenneth Holt

CDC & Prevention, DHHS

Natl. Center for Environmental

Health

Special Programs Group (F-16)

4770 Buford Highway, NE

Atlanta, GA 30341-3724

Mr. John Perry, Director

Office of Comm Planning &

Development

U.S. Department of Housing &

Urban Development

Room 270

75 Spring Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Mr. Haynes Johnson, Chief

Wetlands Regulatory North Unit

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

Mr. Heinz Mueller

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency – Region IV

Atlanta Federal Center

100 Alabama Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Senators and Representaties

The Honorable Max Cleland

United States Senate

75 Spring Street

Suite 1700

Atlanta, GA 30303

The Honorable Paul Coverdell

United States Senate

100 Colony Square, Suite 300

1175 Peachtree Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30361

The Honorable John Lewis

U.S. House of Representatives

The Equitable Building

100 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Suite #1920

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

The Honorable Johnny Isakson

U.S. House of Representatives

6000 Lake Forrest Drive

Suite 110

Atlanta, GA 30328

Governor

The Honorable Roy E. Barnes

State Capitol Building

Atlanta, GA 30334

State Agencies

Lonice Barrett

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources

205 Butler Street SE

Atlanta, GA 30334

Mr. Collis Brown

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources

Floodplain Management Office

7 Martin Luther King Drive

Suite 440

Atlanta, GA 30334

Dr. Ray Luce

Acting SHPO

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources

Historic Preservation Division

205 Butler Street SE

Atlanta, GA 30303

Mr. Paul Mullins

Director of Planning & Programs

Georgia Department of

Transportation

No. 2 Capital Square

Atlanta, GA 30334
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 13

Comm. Wayne Shackleford

Georgia Department of

Transportation

State Capitol

Atlanta, GA 30334

William M. Tomlinson,

Director

State of Georgia

Office of Planning and Budget

270 Washington Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30334-8500

Mr. David E. Studstill, P.E.

Georgia Department of

Transportation

Office of Environment and

Location

3993 Aviation Circle

Atlanta, GA 30336-1593

Hal Wilson

Georgia Department of

Transportation

No. 2 Capitol Square, Room 127

Atlanta, GA 30334

Lynn B. Hooven

Chief, Forest Management

Georgia Forestry Comm.

Box 819

Macon, GA 31298-4599

Attention: Ms. Sheila Long

Arthur Vaughn

Georgia Rail Passenger Authority

No. 2 Capitol Square, Room 127

Atlanta, GA 30334

Mr. Ron Methiez, Chief

Georgia State Historic

Preservation Office

Environmental Protection

Division

4244 International Parkway

Suite 120

Atlanta, GA 30354

Ralph Comer

Transportation Director

Tennessee Department of

Transportation

James K. Polk Building

Suite 900

505 Deaderick Street

Nashville, TN 37243

J. Bruce Saltsman Sr.

Commissioner

Tennessee Department of

Transportation

James K. Polk Building

 Suite 700

505 Deaderick Street

Nashville, TN 37243

Regional Agencies

Joel Stone, Co-Chair

Atlanta Regional Commission

200 Northcreek, Suite 300

3715 Northside Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30327

James Layton

Coosa Valley RDC

One Jackson Hill Drive

P.O. Box 1793

Rome, GA 30162-1793

Jim Croy, Co-Chair

Georgia Regional Transp.

Authority

2300 Equitable Building

100 Peachtree Street NW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Barry Tarter

North Georgia RDC

503 West Waugh Street

 Dalton, GA 30720

Ms. Ann Coulter

Planning Commission

200 City Hall Annex

100 E 11th Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Ms. Sally Bethea

Executive Director

Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

1900 Emery Street, Suite 450

Atlanta, GA 30318

Nick Ogden, Chief

Regulatory Functions Branch

Savannah District, COE

P.O. Box 889

Savannah, GA 31402

ATTN: David Crosby/

Steve Congdon

Counties

Mr. Rob Hosack, Director

Cobb County Community

Development Department

Planning Division

100 Cherokee Street, Suite 556

Marietta, GA 30090

Mr. Dan Dobry

Cobb County Department of

Transportation

100 Cherokee Street, Suite 150

Marietta, GA 30090

Mr. Nayef Haddad, Director

Fulton County Department of

Transportation

141 Prior Street, 6th Floor

Atlanta, GA 30303

Ms. Nancy Leathers, Director

Fulton County Environmental and

Community

Development Department

141 Prior Street, SW

Suite 5001

Atlanta, GA 30303

Buddy L. Chapman

Walker County Commission

P.O. Box 445

LaFayette, GA 30728
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 14

Catoosa County Area Chamber of

Commerce

854 Old Mill Road

P.O. Box 52

Reinggold, GA 30736

Chattanooga Urban Area

Metropolitan Planning

Organization for Transportation

100 East 11th Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Clarence Brown

Commissioner

Bartow County Commissioner’s

Office

P.O. Box 543

Cartersville, GA 31020

W. Michael Babb, Chairman

Whitfield County

P.O. Box 248

Dulton, GA 30728

Cities

The Honorable Marcia Andruzzi

Mayor, City of Acworth

4375 Senator Russell Square, NW

Acworth, GA 30101

Mr. Michael Dobbins,

Commissioner

City of Atlanta

Department of Planning &

Development

55 Trinity Avenue, SW

Suite 1450

Atlanta, GA 30335

The Honorable Jon Kinsey

Mayor, City of Chattanooga

City Hall

100 E 11th Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

The Honorable John Haynie

City of Kennesaw

2529 Jo Stephenson Avenue

Kennesaw, GA 30144

The Honorable Ansley Meaders

City of Marietta

205 Lawrence Street NE

Marietta, GA 30060

David Crockett, Chairman

Chattanooga Council

City Hall, Room 111

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Libraries

Chattanooga-Hamilton County

Regional Library

1000 Broad Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Cobb County Public Library

Central Library

266 Roswell Street

Marietta, GA 30060

Cobb County Public Library

Kennesaw Branch

2250 Lewis Street, NW

Kennesaw, GA 30144

Fulton County Public Library

Central Library

One Margaret Mitchell Square

Atlanta, GA 30303

Fulton County Public Library

College Park Branch

3647 Main Street

College Park, GA 30337

Other

Mr. Tom Dugan

Executive Director

CARTA

1617 Wilcox Boulevard

Chattanooga, TN 37406

Mr. Hugh Davis

Airport Manager

Chattanooga Airport Authority

1001 Airport Road, Suite 14

Chattanooga, TN 37421

David Crockett

The Chattanooga Institute

Civic Forum

1001 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

The Georgia Conservancy

1776 Peachtree Street, NW

Suite 400 South

Atlanta, GA 30309

Mr. Paul B. Kelman

Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.

Hurt Building - Grand Lobby

50 Hurt Plaza

Atlanta, GA 30303-2923

Mr. Jim Presswood

Coalition for Clean Air in the SE

Suite 305

1447 Peachtree Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30309

Mr. John Sibley

Georgia Conservancy

Suite 400 South

1776 Peachtree Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30309

Mr. Jon Abercrombie

Common Focus

214 Wilton Drive

Decatur, GA 30309

Ms. Kelly Love

Council for Quality Growth

Suite 160

1770 Indian Trail Road

Norcross, GA 30093

Dr. Olin M. Ivey

Georgia Environmental

Organization

3185 Center Street, SE

Smyrna, GA 30090-7039

Mr. Warren Williams

Georgia Transportation Alliance

75 Mike’s Lane

Sharpsburg, GA 30277

Mr. James Chapman

Georgian’s for Transportation

Alternatives

Room 107

1083 Austin Avenue, NE

Atlanta, GA 30307
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 15

Mr. Bryan Hager

Sierra Club

Suite 305

1447 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30309

Mr. Rand Wentworth

The Trust for Public Land

Suite 601

1447 Peachtree Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30309

Eric R. Meyers

Urban Design Studio

850 Market Street, 2nd Floor

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Georgia Power

Bin 10240

241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE

Atlanta, GA 30308-3374

Interested Parties

Jim Farley

P.O. Box 641

Smyrna, GA 30081

Thomas Davenport

940 Tranquil Street

Austell, GA 30106

Katherine Roddy

3687 Larry Lane

East Ridge, TN 37421

Ann Howington

140 Hollie Lane

College Park, GA 30349

Melvin Krupnick

611 Trailwood Lane

Marietta, GA 30064

William McGinnis

1209 West 50 Street #4

Chattanooga, TN 37409
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 16

Louisiana

Federal Agencies

Mr. Ronald Ventola

Cheif, Regulatory Branch

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

New Orleans District

(CEMVN-OD-S)

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA 70118

Admiral Pluta

Commander

U. S. Coast Guard, 8th District

Hale Boggs Building

501 Magazine Street

New Orleans, LA 70130-3396

Richard Harman, Chief

Baton Rouge Office

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Habitat Conservation Division

C/O Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7535

Shari Brand, Natural Hazards

Program Specialist

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Region VI

Federal Regional Center

800 North Loop 288

Denton, TX 76201-3698

E. J. Giering III, P.E.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Resources Conservation

Service

3737 Government Street

Alexandria, LA 71302

Joyce M. Porter

ASW-640D

Federal Aviation Administration

2601 Meacham Boulevard

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298

Senators and Representatives

The Honorable Mary Landrieu

United States Senate

Hale Boggs Federal Building

Room 1010

501 Magazine Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

The Honorable John Breaux

United States Senate

Hale Boggs Federal Building

501 Magazine Street, Suite 1005

New Orleans, LA 70130

The Honorable David Vitter

U.S. House of Representatives

2800 Veterans Blvd.

Suite 201

Metairie, LA 70002

The Honorable William J.

Jefferson

U.S. House of Representatives

501 Magazine St., Suite 1012

New Orleans, LA 70130

Governor

The Honorable M.J. “Mike”

Foster

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 94004

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

State Agencies

Ms. LisaMiller

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 82231

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2231

Mr. James Hanchey

Assistant Secretary

Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources

P.O. Box 44487

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Mr. Vince Russo

Environmental Engineer

Administrator

Louisiana Department of

Transportation

P.O. Box 94245

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245

Mr. Fred Dunham

Louisiana Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries

P.O. Box 98000

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000

Mr. Leslie Rodrigue

Crescent Soil and Water

Conservation District

14246 US Highway 90

P.O. Box 531

Boutte, LA 70039

Counties

Mr. Aaron Broussard

Council Chairman

Jefferson Parish

P.O. Box 9

Gretna, LA 70054

Mr. Charles Laque

Parish President

St. Charles Parish

P.O. Box 302

Hahnville, LA 70057

Mr. Kevin Davis

Parish President

St. Tammany Parish Policy Jury

P.O. Box 628

Covington, LA 70434

Mr. Alan J. Francingues

Executive Director

The Board of Levee

Commissioners

East Jefferson Levee District

203 Plauche Court

Harahan, LA 70123
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 17

Stephen A. Romano

St. Charles Parish Planning and

Zoning

P.O. Box 302

Hahnville, LA 70057

Cities

Mayor Louis Congemi

City of Kenner

1801 Williams Boulevard

Kenner, LA 70062

Mayor Marc Morial

City of New Orleans

1300 Perdido Street

New Orleans, LA 70112

Mr. Walter R. Brooks

Deputy Director

Regional Planning Commission

1340 Poydras Street, Suite 2100

New Orleans, LA 70112

Mr. Hunter O. Wagner

General Manager

Greater New Orleans Expressway

Commission

P.O. Box 7656

Metairie, LA 70010

Mr. Edward Bayer

Manager of Planning

Regional Transit Authority

6700 Plaza Drive

New Orleans, LA 70127

Gerald T. Preau, P.E.

Network Engineering

Sewerage and Water Board of

New Orleans

625 St. Joseph Street

New Orleans, LA 70165

Libraries

Mrs. Gwen Goodman

Director of Public Services

Eastbank Regional Library

4747 W. Napolean

Metairie, LA 70001

Mr. Collin Hamer

Head of Louisiana Division

Main Library

(City of New Orleans)

219 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70112

Mrs. Nancy Anderson

Supervisor

St. Charles Parish Library/East

Regional Branch

P.O. Box 759

Destrehan, LA 70047

Mrs. Lilly Butler

St. Tammany Parish Library

Madisonville Branch

400 Cedar Street

Madisonville, LA 70447

Mrs. Allison Williams

St. Tammany Parish Library

Mandeville Branch

845 Gerard Street

Mandeville, LA 70448

Others

Mr. Carlton Dufrechou

Lake Pontchartrain Basin

Foundation

P.O. Box 6965

Metairie, LA 70009-6965

Mr. Darrel Saizan

New Orleans International Airport

P.O. Box 20007

New Orleans, LA 70141

Mr. James Guilbeau

Sierra Club/Delta Chapter

P.O. Box 19469

New Orleans, LA 70179-0469

J.C. Guignard, MD, F.Erg.S.

Guignard Biodynamics &

Ergonomics

824 Kent Avenue

Metairie, LA 70001-4332

Eric C. MacDonald

Parsons Transportation Group,

Inc.

Two Landmark Center

225 East Robinson Street

Suite 140

Orlando, FL 32801

Dorothy L. Markey

Southeast LA Hospital

P.O. Box 3850

Mandeville, LA 70470-0830

Philip E. Leinbach, President

Little Tchefuncte River

Association

P.O. Box 1466

Folsom, LA 70437

Interested Parties

Ron Johnson

726 Newman Avenue

Jefferson, LA 70121

Merriman DonDiven

152 Bertel Drive

Covington, LA 70433

Linda Begue

116 E. Ruelle Drive

Mandeville, LA 70471

M. Miscove

46 Deloaks Drive

Madisonville, LA 70447

Charles H. Erickson

512 Orleans Avenue

Covington, LA 70433

Alma Puckett

21290 Florence Road

Mandeville, LA 74071
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 18

R. Keller

67030 Thackery St

Mandeville, LA 70471

Bill Kinard

4595 Marquette Street

Mandeville, LA 70471

Earl J. Wilson, Jr.

13056 Wilson Lane

Covington, LA 70435

Carol Suhren

108 Marina Drive

Mandeville, LA 70448

Howard Stanley

15 Green Briar Road

Covington, LA 70433

Frances S. Newman

P.O. Box 1107

60056 So. Oaklawn Drive

Lacombe, LA 70445-1107

Calvin A. Lopes

7450 Mayo Boulevard

New Orleans. LA 70126-2044

Julia Sather

6241 Pasteur Boulevard

New Orleans, LA 70122

Mike Breerwood

3205 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70119

Leonard L. Burier

1000 N. Broad Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70119

Darrel Dominque

912 Tavel Drive

Kenner, LA 70065

Burton Mayeux

186 Iber Street

LaPlace, LA 70068
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 19

Maryland

Federal Agencies

Dr. Tim Karikari

Program Manager

Department of Health

Environmental Health

Administration

Watershed Protection Division

51 N Street NE, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

Mr. Dave Murphy

National Park Service

National Capital Region

Regional Liaison Transportation

Planning

1100 Ohio Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20242

Mr. Andy Moser

Endangered Species Biologist

U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish &

Wildlife Service

Division of Ecological Services

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive

Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. Steve Raiche

Historical Preservation Division

940 N. Capital Street, NE

Suite 2500

Washington, DC 20002

Ms. Denise Rigney

NEPA Program Manager (3ES30)

Environmental Protection Agency

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Mr. Paul Wettlaufer

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

Baltimore District/ CENB-OP-R

Transportation Programs Manager

P.O. Box 1715

Baltimore, MD 21203

Mr. Gregory McCarthy

State Historic Preservation Officer

941 North Capitol Street, NE

Room 2500

Washington, DC 20002

Mr. Reginald Griffith

National Capital Planning

Commission

801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 301

Washington, DC 20576

Senators and Representatives

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski

United States Senate

World Trade Center

401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 253

Baltimore, MD 21202-3099

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes

United States Senate

Tower I, Suite 1710

100 South Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

The Honorable Benjamin L.

Cardin

U.S. House of Representatives

540 E. Belvedere Avenue

Suite 201

Baltimore, MD 21212

The Honorable Albert R. Wynn

U.S. House of Representatives

9200 Basil Court

Suite 316

Springdale, MD 20774

The Honorable Elijah E.

Cummings

U.S. House of Representatives

3000 Druid Park Drive

Baltimore, MD 21215

Governor

The Honorable Parris N.

Glendening

State House

Annapolis, MD 21401

State Agencies

Mr. Robert Summers

Maryland Department of the

Environment

Technical and Regulatory

Services Administration

2500 Broening Highway

Baltimore, MD 21224

Mr. Terry Clark

Maryland Department of the

Environment

Water Management

Administration

Non-Tidal Wetlands and

Waterways Division

2500 Broening Highway

Baltimore, MD 21224

Ms. Ann Bruder

Chief, Office of Preservation

Services

Maryland Historical Trust

100 Community Place

Annapolis, MD 21032-2023

Mr. Ray Dintaman

Director

Maryland Department of Natural

Resources

Tawes State Office Building

Annapolis, MD 21401

Ms. Regina Esslinger

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

Commission

45 Calvert Street, 2nd Floor

Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. Larry Duket

Maryland Office of State Planning

301 West Preston Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Mr. Andrew Altman

D.C. Office of Planning

801 N. Capitol Street, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20002
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 20

Mr. Richard White

Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority

600 5th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Ms. Lynn Bezilla

Maryland Aviation Administration

P.O. Box 8766

BWI Airport, MD 21240-0766

Mr. Doug Simmons

Maryland State Highway

Administration

P.O. Box 717

Baltimore, MD 21203-0717

Mr. Tom Osborne

Executive Director

Maryland Transportation

Authority

301 Authority Drive

Dundalk, MD 21222

Maryland Department of Housing

and Community Development

100 Community Place

Crownsville, MD 21032

Regional Agencies

Mr. Ron Kirby

Transportation Director

Metropolitan Washington Council

of Governments

777 N. Capitol Street, NE

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20002-4239

Mr. Paul Farrugut

Executive Director

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

601 North Howard Street

Baltimore, MD 21201-4585

Attn: Harvey Bloom

Counties

Mr. Dutch Ruppersberger

County Executive

Baltimore County

400 Washington Avenue

Old Courthouse Mezzanine

Towson, MD 21204

Mr. James Robey

County Executive

Howard County

3430 Courthouse Drive

Ellicott City, MD 21043

Ms. Janet Owens

County Executive

Anne Arundel County

2002 Arundel Center

44 Calvert Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. Wayne Curry

County Executive

Prince George’s County

County Administration Building

14741 Governor Oden Bowie

Drive

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-

3050

Mr. Douglas Duncan

County Executive

Montgomery County

Executive Office Building

101 Monroe Street

Rockville, MD 20850

Cities

The Honorable Anthony Williams

Mayor of Washington, DC

One Judiciary Square

Suite 1100S

Washington, DC 20001

The Honorable Martin O’Malley

Mayor of Baltimore City

250 City Hall

100 N. Holiday Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

John Hoy

Baltimore Area Transit

Association

P.O. Box 117

Glen Burnie, MD 21060

Libraries

East Columbia Branch Library

6600 Cradlerock Way

Columbia, MD 21045

Savage Branch Library

9525 Durness Lane

Laurel, MD 20723

Miller Branch Library

9421 Frederick Road

Ellicott City, MD 21042

Elkridge Branch Library

6540 Washington Boulevard

Elkridge, MD 21075

Howard County Central

10375 Little Patuxent Parkway

Columbia, MD 21044

Annapolis Area Library

1410 West Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Brooklyn Park Branch

1 East 11th Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21225

Linthicum Branch

400 Shipley Road

Linthicum, MD 21090

Maryland City at Russett Branch

3501 Russett Common

Laurel, MD 20724

North County Area Library

1010 Eastway

Glen Burnie, MD 21060

Odenton Branch

1270 Odenton Road

Odenton, MD 21113

Provinces Branch

2624 Annapolis Road

Severn Square Shopping Center

Severn, MD 21144

Laurel Branch

507 7th Street

Laurel, MD 20707

Beltsville Branch

4319 Sellman Road

Beltsville, MD 20705
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 21

Hyattsville Branch

6532 Adelphi Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Greenbelt Branch

11 Crescent Road

Greenbelt, MD 20770

New Carrollton Branch

7414 Riverdale Road

New Carrollton, MD 20784

Bladensburg Branch

4820 Annapolis Road

Bladensburg, MD 20710

Mount Rainier Branch

3409 Rhode Island Avenue

Mount Rainier, MD 20712

Light Street Branch

1251 Light Street

Baltimore, MD 21230

Washington Village Branch

856 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Arbutus Library

1581 Sulphur Spring Road

Suite 105

Arbutus, MD 21227-2598

Chevy Chase Regional Library

5625 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20015

Georgetown Regional Library

3260 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

Francis A. Gregory Regional

Library

3660 Alabama Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20020

Woodridge Regional Library

1801 Hamlin Street, NE

Washington, DC 20018

Capitol View Branch Library

5001 Central Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20019

Other

Kelly Bryne

The Greenfields Co., Inc.

The Studio @ 307 Circle Avenue

Takoma, MD 20912

Lee Epstein

1000 Friends of Maryland

1209 North Calvert Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Bob DeGroot

American Discovery Trail

3008 Tarragon Lane

Bowie, MD 20715

Mike Murdoch

Anne Arundel County Sierra Club

602 Quiet Water Park Road

Annapolis, MD 21403

Mel Merrit

Arundel Habitat for Humanity

1 Horn Point Court

Annapolis, MD 21403

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

162 Prince George Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Nancy Davis

Howard Group of Sierra Club

7172 Sanner Road

Clarksville, MD 21209

Mary Rosso

Maryland Waste Coalition

845 North Shore Drive

Glen Burnie, MD 21060

Jacqueline Carrera

Parks and People Foundation

1901 Eagle Drive

Baltimore, MD 21207

Francis Flanigan

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

6600 York Road

Baltimore, MD 21212

Neil Fitzpatrick

Audobon Naturalist Society

8940 Jones Mill Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Holly Stone

Campaign for Better Mobility

P.O. Box 7074

Silver Spring, MD 20907

Citizens Planning and Housing

Association

218 West Saratoga Street

Baltimore MD 21201

Charles Dickson

Community Transportation

Association of America

1341 G Street, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20005-3105

Terry Harris

Greater Baltimore Group of Sierra

Club

107 Scott Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Robert McNully

Partners for Livable Communities

1429 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

Tyler Gearhart

Preservation Maryland

24 West Saratoga Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Ralph Cullison

Reservoir Watershed Protection

407 Able Wolman Municipal

Building

200 North Holliday Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Barbara Taylor

Save Our Streams

258 Scotts Manor Drive

Glen Burnie, MD 21061

John Baer

Sierra Club

10 Taney Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21401

Chris Bedford

Sierra Club

5104 42nd Avenue

Hyattsville, MD 20781
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 22

Nat Williams

The Conservation Fund

1800 NorthKent Street

Suite 1120

Arlington, VA 22209

Janet McGlynn

Urban Rural Transportation

Alliance

9150 Rumsey Road Suite B3

Columbia, MD 21045

John Bernstein

The Nature Conservancy

2 Wisconsin Circle

Suite 300

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Interested Parties

Harold West

11008 Steeplechase Court

Ellicott City, MD 21042

Paul Metz

1272 Thompson Avenue

Severn, MD 21144

Jay Keithline

PSC Box 15436

Southeast Station

Washington, DC 20003

Marion Buckingham

1272 Thompson Avenue

Severn, MD 21144

Elsie Ringgold

1267 Delmont Road

Severn, MD 21144

Mignon Bush-Davis

10 Stream Valley Court

Laytonsville, MD 20882

Jennifer Harville

Johns Hopkins University

624 N. Broadway, 5th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21205

Louis T. Cerny

310 Summit Hall Road

Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 23

Nevada

Federal Agencies

Joe Rodriguez

Airport District Office

Federal Aviation Administration

831 Mitten Road, Room 210

Burlingame, CA 94010

William C. Withycombe

Western-Pacific Regional

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

15000 Aviation Boulevard

Lawndale, CA 90261

Ted Epling

Federal Highway Administration

705 N. Plaza Street, Suite 200

Carson City, NV 89701

Kevin Roukey

Reno Regulatory Office

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

300 Booth Street, Room 2120

Reno, NV 89509

Sara Lynnette Russell

Local Government Liaison

U.S. Environ Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street, CGR-2-3

San Francisco, CA 94105

Janet Bair

Asst. Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1510 N. Decatur Boulevard

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Robert Abbey

Director

Bureau of Land Management

4765 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Jeff Steinmetz

Bureau of Land Management

4765 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Rex Wells

Bureau of Land Management

4765 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Judy Fry

Bureau of Land Management

4765 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Joe Leibhauser

Manager, Environmental

Compliance & Realty Group

Bureau of Reclamation

P.O. Box 6140

Boulder City, NV 89006-1470

Robert Williams

State Supervisor, Ecological Svcs

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1340 Financial Boulevard #234

Reno, NV 89502

Jen Bodenrader

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

300 Booth Street, Room 2120

Reno, NV 89509

Senators and Representatives

The Honorable Richard Bryan

United State Senate

300 Las Vegas Boulevard South

Suite 1110

Las Vegas, NV 89101

The Honorable Harry Reid

United States Senate

Foley Federal Building

300 Las Vegas Boulevard South

Suite 1610

Las Vegas, NV 89101

The Honorable Shelley Berkley

U.S. House of Representatives

2340 Paseo Del Prado

Suite D-106

Las Vegas, NV 89102

The Honorable Jim Gibbons

U.S. House of Representatives

850 South Durango Drive, Suite

107

Las Vegas, Nevada 89128

The Honorable John B. Regan

United States Senate

Legislative Building

401 S. Carson Street

Carson City, NV 89710

Governor

The Honorable Kenny Guinn

Capitol Building

Carson City, NV 89701

State Agencies

Brenda Pohlmann

Env. Management Specialist

Nevada Department of

Environmental Protection

555 E. Washington Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Jim Smitherman

Nevada Department of

Environmental Protection

333 W. Nye Lane

Carson City, NV 89706-0851

Joe Freeman

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Nevada Department of

Transportation

123 E Washington Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Daryl James

Environmental Division

Nevada Department of

Transportation

1263 S Stewart St

Carson City, NV 89712
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 24

Joseph Pelter

Program Devel. Office

Nevada Department of

Transportation

123 E Washington

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Thomas E. Stephens, P.E

Director

Nevada Department of

Transportation

1263 S Stewart Street

Carson City, NV 89712

Gene Wright

District Engineer

Nevada Department of

Transportation

123 E Washington Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Pam Wilcox

Administrator

Nevada Division of State Lands

333 W Nye Lane, Room 118

Carson City, NV 89706

Ruth Danner

Land Agent

Nevada Division of State Lands

333 W Nye Lane, Room 118

Carson City, NV 89706

Brad Hardenbrook

Biologist

Nevada Division of Wildlife

4747 Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Craig Stevenson

Biologist

Nevada Division of Wildlife

4747 Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108

Glenn Clemmer

Staff Botanist

Nevada Heritage Program

1550 E. College Parkway

 Suite 145

Carson City, NV 89706-7921

Heather Elliot

Nevada State Clearinghouse

Department of Administration

209 Musser, Room 200

Carson City, NV 89701

Ronald M James

State Historic Preservation Officer

Nevada State Historic Preserv.

Office

100 N. Stewart Street

Capitol Complex

Carson City, NV 89710

Rebecca Lynn Palmer

Historic Preservation Specialist

Nevada State Historic

Preservation Office

100 N. Stewart Street

Carson City, NV 89701-4285

Dick Serdoz

Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection-LV

555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite

4300

Las Vegas, NV 89101-1049

John Jones

Regional Forester

Nevada Division of Forestry

4747 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108-2135

Robert Ruffridge

Regional Manager

Nevada Division of Forestry

4747 W. Vegas Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89108-2135

Regional Agencies

Kevin Eubanks

Regional Flood Control District

600 S. Grand Central Parkway

#300

Las Vegas, NV 89106-4511

Lee Gibson

Regional Transportation Comm

600 S. Grand Central Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89155

Fred Ohene, P.E.

Regional Transportation Comm

600 S. Grand Central Parkwy

Las Vegas, NV 89155

Jacob Snow

Director

Regional Transportation Comm

600 S. Grand Central Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89155

Kurt Weinrich, Director

Regional Transportation

Commission

301 E. Clark Avenue

Suite 300

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Counties

Richard Holmes, AICP

Assistant County Manager

Clark County

500 S Grand Central

Las Vegas, NV 89155-1744

John Schlagel

Director, Comp Planning

Clark County

500 S Grand Central Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89155-1744

Kristine Bunnell

Trails Planner

Clark County Comp Planning

P.O. Box 551741

Las Vegas, NV 89115-1741

Ron Gregory

Principal Environ. Planner

Clark County Comp Planning

P.O. Box 551741

Las Vegas, NV 89115-1741

John Hiatt, Chairman

Enterprise Town Advisory Board

C/O Clark County Current

Planning

P.O. Box 551741

Las Vegas, NV 89115-1741

Steve Henke

Clark County Health District

625 Shadow Lane

Las Vegas, NV 89127
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 25

Bill Lynn

Clark County Health District

625 Shadow Lane

Las Vegas, NV 89127

Glenn Savage

Clark County Health District

625 Shadow Lane

Las Vegas, NV 89127

Ed Wojcik

Clark County Health District

625 Shadow Lane

Las Vegas, NV 89127

Phil Rosenquist

Assistant Director,

Comprehensive Planning

Clark County

P.O. Box 551741

Las Vegas, NV 89155-1744

Cities

John Hoole

Community Development

Director

City of Boulder City

900 Arizona Street

Boulder City, NV 89005

Tim Chow, AICP

Director, Planning &

Development

City of Las Vegas

731 S Fourth Street

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Kyle C. Walton

Planning

City of Las Vegas

731 S Fourth Street

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Jacquelin Risner

Community Development

Director

City of North Las Vegas

2200 Civic Center Drive

North Las Vegas, NV 89030-

6307

Mary Kay Peck

Planning Director

City of Henderson

240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

Douglas A. Selby, Ph.D., P.E.

Assistant City Manager

City of Las Vegas

731 S. Fourth Street

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Mark Calhoun

Director, Public Works

City of Henderson

240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

Libraries

Clark County Library

1401 E. Flamingo Rd.

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702/733-7810

Enterprise Library

25 E. Shelbourne Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89123

702/269-3000

Las Vegas Library and District

Headquarters

833 N. Las Vegas Boulevard

Las Vegas, NV 89101

702/382-3493

Others

Teresa Arnold

Planning Division

McCarran Airport

P.O. Box 11005

Las Vegas, NV 89111-1005

Dennis Mewshaw

Dept. of Aviation

McCarran Intn'l Airport

P.O. Box 11005 Airport Station

Las Vegas, NV 89111

Susan Murphy

Harry Reid Center for

Environmental Studies

University of Nevada Las Vegas

P.O. Box 454009

Las Vegas, NV 89154-4009

Jeff Van Ee

2092 Heritage Oaks

Las Vegas, NV 89119

Dave Brickey

Sierra Club

P.O. Box 19777

Las Vegas, NV 89132

Dan Van Epp

Las Vegas District Council

Urban Land Institute

C/O Howard Hughes Corp.

10000 W. Charleston, Ste. 200

Las Vegas, NV 89135

Stephanie Garcia, Director

Southern Section, Nevada Chapter

American Planning Association

C/O Henderson Community

Development

240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

Robert Forbuss, Chairman

Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

3720 Howard Hughes Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89109-0937

Michael O. Maffie,

President/CEO

Southwest Gas Corporation

5241 Spring Mountain Road

P.O. Box 98510

Las Vegas, NV 89183-8510

R. Lee Chapman

Manager, Administration

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.

P.O. Box 29

Elko, NV 89803

John R. Gibson

Chairman, President & CEO

American Pacific Corporation

3770 Howard Hughes Parkway

Suite 300

Las Vegas, NV 89109
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 26

Mark E. Brown

Station Casinos

2411 West Sahara Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89102

E. Edward Crispell

General Manager

Imperial Palace

3535 Las Vegas Boulevard South

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Timothy Cashman

President

Cashman Cadillac

2711 E. Sahara

Las Vegas, NV 89014

Interested Parties

Tom McGowan

720 S. Casino Center Boulevard

#5

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Scotty Wetzel

628 Via Linda Court

Las Vegas, NV 89144

Sheldon Sisson

7014 La Cienega Street

Las Vegas, NV 89119

Greg Tombaugh

7905 Ryandale Circle, #102

Las Vegas, NV 89145

Michael Ramirez

2712 Duck Pond Court

Henderson, NV 89014

Dario & Magdalen Roth

540 Grimsby Avenue

Henderson, NV 89014
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 27

Pennsylvania

Federal Agencies

Ms. Sharon Daboin

Federal Aviation Administration

HAR-ADO

3911 Hartzdale Drive

Suite 1100

Camp Hill, PA 17011

Ms. Lynn Bortel

Federal Highway Administration

District West

5

th Floor Federal Building

228 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720

Mr. Ronald W. Carmichael

Federal Highway Administration

Pennsylvania Division

5

th Floor Federal Building

228 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720

Mr. Carmine Fiscina

Metropolitan Intermodal Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

1760 Market Street, Suite 510

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Dan Johnson

Federal Highway Administration

Planning Research &

Environment

228 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720

Mr. Tony Mentos

Federal Highway Administration

5

th floor Federal Building

228 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720

Mr. John Garrity

Federal Transit Authority

1760 Market Street

Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Richard S. Sobol

USACE-Pittsburgh District

Room 1834 Federal Building

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186

Mr. Bob Heidecker

US Department of Agriculture

1 Credit Union Pl Ste 340

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993

Ms. Barbara Okorn

U.S. EPA Region III, 3ES30

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Mr. David Densmore

U.S.FWS

315 S. Allen Street, Suite 322

State College, PA 16801

Mr. Richard McCoy

Fish & Wildlife Biologist

U.S. FWS

315 South Allen Street

Suite 322

State College, PA 16801

Senators and Representatives

The Honorable Rick Santorum

United State Senate

Landmarks Building

One Station Square, Suite 250

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

The Honorable Arlen Spector

United States Senate

Suite 2031, Federal Building

Liberty Avenue and Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

The Honorable Ron Klink

U.S. House of Representatives

North Huntingdon Twp.

Municipal Building

11279 Center Highway

North Huntingdon, PA 15642

The Honorable William J. Coyne

U.S. House of Representatives

1000 Liberty Avenue

Room 2009

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

The Honorable Michael F. Doyle

U.S. House of Representatives

11 Duff Road

Penn Hills, PA 15235

The Honorable Frank Mascara

U.S. House of Representatives

Professional Plaza

Suite 210

625 Lincoln Avenue

N. Charleroi, PA 15022

The Honorable John P. Murtha

U.S. House of Representatives

Centre Town mall

P.O. Box 780

Johnstown, PA 15907-0780

Governor

The Honorable Tom Ridge

225 Main Capitol

Harrisburg, PA 17120

State Agencies

The Honorable Jay Costa, Jr.

Senate Box 203043

The State Capitol

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0343

The Honorable Vincent J. Fumo

Senate Post Office

The State Capitol

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0030

The Honorable Allen G. Kukovich

Senate Box 20309

The State Capitol

Harrisburg, PA 17120-3039

The Honorable Harold F.

Mowery, Jr.

Senate Box 20301

Main Capitol Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-3031

The Honorable John N. Wozniak

Senate Box 203035

101 Capital Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-3035
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 28

The Honorable David K.

Levdansky

State Representative

112 Second Avenue

Elizabeth, PA 15037

The Honorable Paul I. Clymer

State Representative

House Post Office Box 202020

Main Capitol Building

Room 150

Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020

The Honorable Jane C. Orie

State Representative

House Box 202020

South Office Building

Room 428

Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020

The Honorable Don Walko

State Representative

House Box 202020

219 South Office Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020

Mr. Douglas Wolfgang

Pennsylvania Department of

Agriculture

Bureau of Farmland Protection

2301 N. Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797

Mr. Phil Robbins

Deputy Sec for Programs

Pennsylvania Deartment of

Community and Economic

Development

Forum Building Room 551

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Mr. John Paxton

Water Pollution Biologist

PADEP

Southwest Regional Office

400 Waterfront Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Mr. Ken Reisinger

PADEP, Division of. Waterways,

Wetlands & Erosion Control

RCSOB - 6th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554

Mr. Joseph Daversa

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

Bureau of Public Transportation

Forum Place, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

Mr. Michael Dufalla

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

District 12-0

459 N. Gallatin Avenue

Extension.

Uniontown, PA 15401

Mr. Ray Hack, P.E.

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

 District Engineer

Engineering District 11-0

45 Thoms Run Road

Bridgeville, PA 15017

Mr. Thomas Kotay

Pennsylvania Department. of

Transportation, Program Center

Forum Place, 6th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 717-787-5247

Ms. Patricia Remy

Environmental Manager

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

Engineering District 11-0

45 Thoms Run Road

Bridgeville, PA 15017

Mr. Louis Schultz

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

Program Center

Forum Place, 6th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

Mr. Robert L. Shellenberger

Manager, Intercity Passenger

Programs

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation

Bureau of Public Transit

555 Walnut Street-8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

Mr. Walter Holtsmaster

Fisheries Biologist

PA Fish & Boat Commission

450 Robinson Lane

Bellefonte, PA 16823-9616

Mr. David Spotts

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat

Commission

450 Robinson Lane

Bellefonte, PA 16823-9616

Mr. Kevin Mixon

Pennsylvania Game Commission

2001 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797

Mr. Tony Ross

Pennsylvania Game Commission

2001 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797

Ms. Brenda Barrett, Director

Pennsylvania Historical Museum

Commission

Bureau for Historic Preservation

State Museum Building

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1026

Mr. Kurt W.Carr, Chief

Division of Archaeology and

Protection

Pennsylvania Historical Museum

Commission

Bureau for Historic Preservation

State Museum Building

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1026

Ms. Susan Zacher

Pennsylvania Historical Museum

Commission

Bureau for Historic Preservation

State Museum Building

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1026

Joseph W. Chunpa

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection

400 Waterfront Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745

Counties
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 29

Mr. Kent George

Allegheny County Dept. of

Aviation

Pittsburgh International Airport

P.O. Box 12370

Pittsburgh, PA 15231-0370

Mr. Mula Birru

Allegheny County Dept. of

Economic Development

425 6th Avenue

Suite 800

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Mr. Bruce Ahern

Port Authority of Allegheny

County

2235 Beaver Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15233-1080

Mr. Richard Feder

Port Authority of Allegheny

County

2235 Beaver Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15233-1080

Mr. Larry Larese

Westmoreland County Planning

Department

2 North Main Street

Suite 601

Greensburg, PA 15601

Mr. Gene Lakin

Westmoreland County Airport

Authority

200 Pleasant Unity Road

Latrobe, PA 15650

Mr. Larry Morris

Westmoreland County Transit

Authority

41 Bell Way

Greensburg, PA 15601

Cities

Ms. Eloise Hirsh

City of Pittsburgh

Department of City Planning

200 Ross Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Mayor James Gebicki

City of Latrobe

P.O. Box 829

821 Chestnut Street

Latrobe, PA 15650

Mayor Tom Murphy

City of Pittsburgh

512 City Building

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Edward J. Warchol

Borough Manager

Borough of Aspinwall

217 Commercial Avenue

Aspinwall, PA 15215

Mayor Ronald A. Aroni

Brentwood Borough

Office of the Mayor

3624 Brownsville Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15227

Gary L. Willard

Manager

Township of Collier

2418 Hilltop Road

Presto, PA 115142

Mayor Robert Heinrich

The Borough of Carnegie

One Glass Street

Carnegie, PA 15106

Jerry A. Andree

Township Manager

2525 Rochester Road

Cranberry Township, PA 16066-

6499

Mrs. Ronnie Peduzzi

Township Secretary

Township of Crescent

225 Spring Run Road

Crescent Township, PA 15046

Mayor Charles F. Hammer

Borough of Green Tea

10 West Manila Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Mayor Kenneth A. LaSota

Borough of Heidelberg

Railroad Street

Heidelberg, PA 151006

Mayor Betty Esper

Homestead

140 East 9th Avenue

Homestead, PA 15120

William C. Beck

Borough Secretary

Borough of McKees Rocks

Municipal Building

340 Bell Avenue

McKees Rocks, PA 15136

Gregory G. Smith

Township Manager

Township of Moon

Municipal Center

1000 Beaver Grade Road

Moon Township, PA 15108-2984

Joanne M. Mallory

Borough Secretary

Borough of Mount Oliver

Municipal Building

150 Brownsville Road

Mt. Oliver, PA 15210

Edward R. McGuire

President, North Versailles

Township Board of

Commissioners

3713 Bevan Road

North Versailles, PA 15137

Mayor W. P. Boswell

Borough of Osborne

P.O. Box 97

Sewickley, PA 15143

Ivy Foreman

Borough Manager

Borough of Pennsbury Village

1043 Pennsbury Boulevard

Pittsburgh, PA 15205-1643

Michael A. Silvestri

Township Manager

Peters Township

610 East McMurray Road

McMurray, PA 15317-5022

Timothy J. Rogers

Township Manager

Township of Shaler

300 Wetzel Road

Glenshaw, PA 15116-2288
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 30

Richard A. Kasmer

Township Manager

Township of South Fayette

515 Millers Run Road

Morgan, PA 15064

Frank J. Carpellotti

President of the Board

Stowe Township

P.O. Box 4141

McKees Rock, PA 15136

Tom Babeo

Borough Administrator/

Coordinator

P.O. Box 196

Fourth and Duquesne Avenue

Trafford, PA 15085

Joseph J. Hartzell

Borough Secretary

Borough of Wilmerding

P.O Box 8

Wilmerding, PA 15148

Libraries

Canonsburg Library

Attn: Reference Library

68 E. Pike Street

Canonsburg, PA 15317

Carnegie Library

Attn: Reference Library

414 Wood Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Carnegie Library

Attn: Reference Library

4400 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Monroeville Public Library

Attn: Reference Library

2615 Mosside Boulevard

Monroeville, PA 15146

Sewickley Public Library

Attn: Reference Library

Thorn & Broad Streets

Sewickley, PA 15143

Others

Ms. Lynn Manion

ACTA

2 Penn Center West

Suite 120

Robinson Township, PA 15276

Mr. Robert Kochanowski

Southwest Pennsylvania

Corporation

425 6th Avenue

Suite 2500

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Mr. Ed Yewdall

Forum Place, 7th Floor

555 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

Mr. Rich Stanizzo

Pittsburgh Building and Trades

Council

1231 Banksville Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15216

Ms. Suzanne Broughton

North Area Environmental

Council

2377 Jenkinson Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15237

Audubon Society of

Western Pennsylvania

614 Dorseyville Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Mr. Tay Waltenbaugh

Who, Inc.

203 South Maple Avenue

Greensburgh, PA 15601

Mr. Terry Daughenbaugh

Eastern Development Corp.

10 West Tacoma Avenue

Latrobe, PA 15650

Interested Parties

Mr. Paul Dick

4601 5th Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Mr. David Krudwig

3497 Meadowsgate

Murrysville, PA 15668

Mr. Kevin M. McNamara

1130 Maple Street Extension

Moon Township, PA 15108

Ms. Dorothy McCaulley

3309 Fieldcrest

North Versailles, PA 15137

Mr. Al Kovacik

620 Baldwin Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15207

Ms. Janet Thorne

Hollow Oak Trust

P.O. Box 741

Moon, PA 15108

Mr. Robert Petsinger

3940 Old William Penn Highway

Pittsburgh, PA 15235

Mr. Tom Kerber

1856 Guffy Road

North Huntington, PA 15642

Ms. Barbara Burtyk

112 Mecrose Drive

New Stanton, PA 15672
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 31

ADDITIONAL NAMES FROM THE MAGLEV INFORMATION MEETINGS,

PUBLIC HEARING AND DOT DOCKET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Senator Soto

822 N. Euclid

Ontario, CA 91762

Bill Ruh, Council Member

City of Montclair

5111 Bemito

Montclair, CA

Trish Pietrzak

AAE Incorporated

333 City Boulevard W #2150

Orange, CA 92868

John Barna

CA HSRA

925 C Street, Suite 1425

Santo, CA 95814

Steve Herfert

West Covina Mayor

1444 W. Garvey Street South

West Covina, CA 91793

Charles Varnes

925 Calle Serra

San Dimas, CA 91773

Mary Mc Cormick

MBI Media

3333 S. Brea Canyon Road

Suite 105

Diamond Bar, CA

Mary Dougherty

Arcadia School District

1110 Rodeo Road

Arcadia, CA 91006

Ken Jenkins

Senator Betty Karnette

3711 Long Beach Boulevard

#801

Long Beach, CA 90807

Ricardo Haro

Haro Engineering

901 W. Arrow Highway

Glendora, CA 91740

Graham Forman

Assemblyman Scott

215 N. Marengo

Pasadena, CA

Barry Samsten

SCAG

818 W. 7th Street

Los Angeles, CA

Michele Miller

Glaab & Associates

21461 Coralita

Lake Forest, CA 92630

Julia Faraneh

SCAG

818 W. 7th Street

Los Angeles, CA

Robert Wg

Caltrans District 7

120 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA

Herb Herr

Auto Club of Southern

California

2199 E. Orange Grove

Pasadena, CA 91104

David Chow

IBI Group

18401 Von Karman Avenue

#110

Irvine, CA 92612

Marsha Bousquet

IBI Group

18401 Von Karman Avenue

#110

Irvine, CA 92612

Victor M. Franco Jr.

Pasadena Transportation

Committee

1119 Elizabeth Street

Pasadena, CA 91104

R. Bernie Orozco

State Senator Richard

Polanco

1020 N. Spring Street Room

586

Sacramento, CA 95814

Beverly Balla

349 N. Washington

Glendora, CA 91741

Nate Brogin

Brocos

P.O. Box 56564

Sherman Oaks, CA 91413

Mark Christoffels

Ace Construction Authority

3871 E. Colorado Boulevard

Suite 100

Pasadena, CA 91107

Jon Veenstra

Monrovia Chamber of

Commerce

620 S. Myrtle

Monrovia, CA 91016

Sid J. Mousari

AAE Inc.

301 N. Lake Avenue

Suite 420

Pasadena, CA 91101

Dan Hobbs

City Manager, City of West

Covina

1444 W. Garvey

West Covina, CA 91793

Hal Ledford

City of La Puente

15900 W. Main

La Puente, CA 91744

Michael Busch

City of Arcadia

240 W. Huntington Drive

Arcadia, CA 91006
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 32

Jim Starkey

Assemblyman Margot

55 E. Huntington Drive

Arcadia, CA

Walt Davis

MTA

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Roman Nava

Assemblyman Rep. Pacheco

17890 Castle Ton Street

City of Industry, CA

Amanda Elioff

Parsons Brinckerhoff

444 S. Flower Street

Los Angeles, CA 91106

Chris Robert

Robert Group

3780 Wilshire Boulevard

#1010

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Yale Lyman

Granite Construction

P.O. Box 50024

Watsonville, CA 95077

Kim Tachiki

Rep. Lycme Roybat Allard

257 E. Temple Street #1860

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Peter Sleigleche

German Consulate

6222 Wilshire Boulevard

#500

Los Angeles, CA 90048

Cecil Carpio

Aviation Commission

City of Inglewood

407 Exton Avenue #4

Inglewood, CA 90302

John Shawahan

Power System Dynamics

9581 Business Center Suite J

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Emma Schafer

Shafer Communications

700 S. Flower Street #1100

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Eddie Tafoya

SCAG

818 W.7th Street, 12th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Erin Bradford

Business Journal of the

Inland Empire

1800 Vineyard Avenue, Suite

306

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

91740

Jack Phillips

City of Industry, Council

Member

250 N. Hacienda Boulevard

City of Industry, CA

Deborah Moraza

City of El Monte

3629 Cypress

El Monte, CA

John Grant

The Boeing Company

5301 Bolsa Avenue MS

H465-A525

Huntington Beach, CA

92647

Art Brown

SCAG

City of Buena Park

6650 Beach Boulevard

Buena Park, CA 90602

Mark R. Johnston

4185 Van Buren Street

Chino, CA 91710

Kathy Howard

City of West Covina

1444 W. Garvey

West Covina, CA 91793

Lenwood Howell

PTG

100 W. Walnut #613

Pasadena, CA 91124

JL Brown

3023 Sunset Hill Drive

West Covina, CA 91791

Naomi Wong

Lang & Murakawa

500 S. Grand #1710

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Jaun Aboleda

Latin Business Association

5400 E. Olympic Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90022

Ruben L. Mosates

City of LA

650 S. Spring Street

Suite #100

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Shawna Rimke

Office of Congressman Hiller

22632 Golden Springs #350

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Joe Guzzetta

City of Irwindale

5050 Irwindale Avenue

Irwindale, CA 91706

Dan Walker

431 W. Hillsdale Street

 Inglewood, CA 90302

Dana Gabbard

3010 Wilshire Boulevard

#362

Los Angeles, CA 90010

David E. Barnhart

Director of Transportation

County of Riverside

Transportation and

 Land Management Agency

Transportation Department

4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor

Riverside, CA 92501

James R. Lewis

Management Analyst

City of Claremont

Community Service

 Department

215 Cornell Avenue

Claremont, CA 91711-4604
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 33

Hector Castillo

Society of Hispanic

Professional Engineers

P.O. Box 226722

Los Angeles, CA 90022

Ruth Galanter

President Pro Tempore

City of Los Angeles

200 North Main Street

Room 515, City Hall East

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Roberta Goldberg

1055 E. Greendale Street

West Covina, CA 91790

Marshall Mouw

Mayor Pro Tem

City of Glendora

116 E. Foothill Boulevard

Glendora, CA 91741

Anwar Wagdy

300 N. “D” Street

San Bernardino, CA 92418

Jim A. Bartel

Assistant Field Supervisor

U.S. Department of the

Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

 Office

2730 Loker Avenue West

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Harold Cates

Lockheed Martin/

Irvington Corp

5600 Sand Lake Road

MP 941

Orlando, FL 32819

Brian Lally

TICO Airport Authority

355 Golden Knights

Titusville, FL 32780

Harland Hyde

AJT & Associates

8190 Astronaut Boulevard

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Victor Tasiemski

AJT & Associates

8190 Astronaut Boulevard

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Sue Gaines

NASA-TA-F

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Matt Taylor

ZHA, Incorporated

225 E. Robinson Street

Suite 200

Orlando, FL 32801

Joan Williams

1050 Hibiscus Street

Cocoa, FL

Scott Carr

355 Golden Knights

Boulevard

Titusville, FL

Debby Donovan

ZHA

225 E. Robinson Street

Suite. 200

Orlando, FL 32801

Linda Coggan

1042 Hibiscus Street

Cocoa, FL

Ray Sharkey

Canaveral Port Authority

4245 Abbey Lane

Titusville, FL 32796

Gary Rhoden

Check-Aid

P.O. Box 561358

Rockledge, FL 32956

W C VanEnglenburg

World Wide Real Estate

1523 Mallard Court

Titusville, FL 32796

Randy Ball

Rep. Comm. Carlson

400 S, Street

Titusville, FL

Rodney Ketcham

Canaveral Port Authority

P.O. Box 267

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Burt Bruns

Canaveral City Council

P.O. Box 326

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

Ralph Powers

Rep. Rick Abramson

KSC Visitor Complex

DNPS

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Richard Treverton

City Council

412 Lincoln Avenue

Cape Canaveral, FL

Jose Perez-Morales

NASA – YA-E4

Kennedy Space Center, FL

32899

Kama Dobbs

Brevard MPO

2725 Judge Fran

 Jamieson Way

Viera, FL 32940

Jim Liesenfelt

SCAT

401 S Varr Avenue

Cocoa, FL 32922

Tom Mariani

Nikken Dist

4210 Hickory Hill Boulevard

Titusville, FL 32780

Dave Kershaw

TRDA

5195 S. Washington Avenue

Titusville, FL 32780

Jim Richards

NASA

4747 S. Washington #135

Titusville, FL 32780
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 34

Paul Secor

Titus Chamber

2000 S. Washington

Titusville, FL 32780

Rene Danis

Asst. to Brev Comm

400 South Streeet

Suite 1A

Titusville, FL

Nancy Evans

Space Inn

3455 Cheney Highway

Titusville, FL 32780

Monica Attkinson

1819 S. Poinsetta Boulevard

Melbourne, FL

Roy Quackenback

1933 S. Padro Boulevard

Melbourne, FL

Ned Buffington

Hoyman CPA

215 Baytree Drive #1

Melbourne, FL 32940

Joel Taft

3725 Sawgrass Drive

Titusville, FL 32780

Tom Fernandez

D5 Florida Department of

Transportation

133 S Semoran Boulevard

Orlando, FL 32780

Don Weicher

741 Lindsay Avenue

Port St. John, FL

Walt Johnson

SCEDC

2000 S. Washington Avenue

Titusville, FL 32780

Abbie Moore

Florida Department of

 Transportation

133 S. Semoran

Orlando, FL

Louise & Augustine Fragala

PFA

5150 S Florida Avenue

Lakeland, FL 33813

Joe Tyborowski

PFA

5150 S FL Avenue

Lakeland, FL 33813

Nazih Haddad

FDOT

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Tommy J. Pickering

Noise and Environmental

 Specialist

Orlando Airports District

 Office

5950 Hazeltine National

Drive

Suite 400

Orlando, FL 32822-5024

Andreas Mager, Jr.

Assistant Regional

 Administrator

United States Department of

 Commerce

Habitat Conservation

 Division

Southeast Regional Office

9721 Executive Center Drive

 North

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Truman Scarborough, Jr.

Commissioner, District 1

400 South Street

First Floor, Suite. 1A

Titusville, FL 32780-7698

Fred Milch

East Central Florida Regional

Planning Council

631 N. Wymore Road

Suite 100

Maitland, FL 32751-4246

Wesley A. Hoaglund

Redevelopment Specialist

City of Titusville

555 South Washington

Avenue

Titusville, FL 32796-3584

Richard B. Votapka, P.E.

City Engineer, City of

Titusville

P.O. Box 2806

555 S. Washington Avenue

Titusville, FL 32781-2806

Jennifer McMurtray

Florida Transportation and

 Wildlife Ecology

Coordinator

Defenders of Wildlife

8175 Imber Street

Orlando, FL 32828

Patricia A. White

National Transportation

 Associate

1101 14th Street, NW

Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

Ralph Cantral

Executive Director

State of Florida

Department of Community

 Affairs

Florida Coastal Management

 Program

2555 Shumard Oak

 Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Kimberly A. Cameron

H.J Russell & Company

504 Fair Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30313

Herbie Lanoux

847 Ormewood Terrace

Atlanta, GA

Senator Sonny Huggins

Georgia State Senate

53rd District

P.O. Box 284

LaFayette, GA 30728

June Mundy

394 Fourth Street

Atlanta, GA 30308

Bob Schrieber

515 Claire Drive

Atlanta, GA 30307
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 35

Byron D. Amos

P.O. Box 92270

Atlanta, GA 30314

Kenneth A. Cutshaw

Holland & Knight LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree St., NE

Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30309-3400

Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D

Angel O. Torres, M.C.P.

Environmental Justice

Resource Center

Clark Atlanta University

223 James P. Brawley Drive

Atlanta, GA 30314

Temita Davis

Metropolitan Atlanta

Transportation Equity

Coalition

P.O. Box 42350

Atlanta, GA 30311

Renee Lewis Glover

Executive Director

The Housing Authority of the

City of Atlanta, Georgia

739 West Peachtree Street,

NE

Atlanta, GA 30308-1149

Senator Huggins

GA State Senate

53rd District 313 LOB

Atlanta, GA 30334

Roussan C Francois

Fulton County

 Public Works

141 Pryor St Ste 6001

Atlanta, GA 30303

Benny Ingram

ECS, LTD.

1800 Sandy Plains Pkwy

Suite 208

Marietta, GA 30066

Linda Adams

Vine City

509 Foundry St

Atlanta, GA 30314

Johnnie B Moore, Jr

Vine City

487 Magnolia St NW Apt 1

Atlanta, GA 30314

Sally Robinson

Downtown Consulting

 Association

424 GA Ave

Chattanooga, TN 37403

Charles Head

1175 Shoreham Drive

Atlanta, GA 30349

Judith Downs

ARC

40 Courtland At NE

Atlanta, GA 30303

Jim McCantor

TVA

1100 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN

Larry Carter

NGRDC

503 W Waugh

Dalton, GA 30720

Bill Tann

Amano Cincinnati

1455 Old Alabama

Roswell, GA 30076

Margaret Harper

Conference of Minority

 Transportation Officials

1725 DeSales Street, NW

Suite 808

Washington, DC 20036

Cynthia Jenkins

Tyler Place DCD

552 Tyler Street

Atlanta, GA 30314

William D. Clemmer

Coosa Valley RDC

P.O. Box 1793

Rome, GA 30162-1793

Mather Stapleton

GRPA

P.O. Box 146

Milan, GA

Tim Harmon

416 Hilldale Drive

Decatur, GA 30030

Emily Tarter

Southeast Whitfield HS

1954 Riverbend Road

Dalton, GA 30720

Doug Faust

Atlanta Housing Authority

739 W. Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30308

Mike Carnathan

ARC

40 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30303

Ben Buchan

Georgia Department of

 Transportation

Capitol Square

Atlanta, GA 30334

John Neal

Dalton Utilities

403 Holiday Drive

Dalton, GA 30720

Bernd

German Consulate

285 Peachtree Circle Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30303

Samuel D. Jolly, Jr.

AVC, Incorporated

440 Westview Drive, SW

Atlanta, GA 30310

Greg Hawthorne

Vine City Housing Ministry

228 Marple Place, NW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Melvin Downs

Downs Engineering,

Incorporated

5916 Brainerd Road

Suite 101

Chattanooga, TN 37421
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 36

John Reeder

Turner Associates

57 Forsyth Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Robert Ross

South Star CDC

847 Ormewood Terrace

Atlanta, GA 30316

Crew Heimer

GRTA

245 Peachtree Street

Suite 900

Atlanta, GA 30303-1223

Bill McCombs

GA Rail Consultants

235 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30303

E. C. McClinton

Georgia Department of

Transportation Board

2 Capitol Square

Atlanta, GA 30302

L Clifton Oliver

Oliver Custom Homes

1707 Grace Court

Smyrna, GA 30082

Joerg Schultz

German Consulate

285 Peachtree Circle Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30303

Don Cope

Dalton Utilities

P.O. Box 869

Dalton.,GA 30720

Roosevelt Thomas

Morris Brown College

643 MLK Jr. Drive, NW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Julie Zulkis

City of Marietta

205 Lawrence Street

Marietta, GA 30060

Kelly Simmons

AJC

75 Marietta, GA 30303

Vincent Fort

State Senate

LOB 305

Atlanta, GA 30334

John Wilson

Southern Coalition for

 Advanced Transportation

P.O. Box 93584

Atlanta, GA 30377

Carolyn J. Williams

GRTA

P.O. Box 870061

Stone Mtn, GA 30087

C. Robinson

City Council

City of Atlanta

55 Trinity Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30335

Clair Muller

Atlanta City Council

55 Trinity Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30335

Joe Pallod

Georgia Department of

 Transportation

2 Capitol Square, Room 356

Atlanta, GA 30334

Clarence Martin

City Council

55 Trinity Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30335

Robert Augustine

Holland & Knight, LLP

1201 W. Peachtree Street

Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30309

Cleta Winslow

Council Member

City of Atlanta

55 Trinity Avenue, SW

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA

Al Haron

Concerned Citizen

1115 Ponde de Leon Avenue

#16

Atlanta, GA 30306

Pierre Thibout

8852 27th Street

Metairie, LA 70003

Edward Guedar

709 Iberville Street

LaPlace, LA 70068

Jim Mastrototaro

Lake Pontchartrain Basin

Foundation

P.O. Box 6965

Metairie, LA 70009

Ronald Goux

GNOEC

P.O. Box 1429

Mandeville, LA 70448

Jens Nielsen

C&S Consultants,

 Incorporated

821 St Charles Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70130

Robert Lambert

RCLC

521 N. Causeway Boulevard

Mandeville, LA

Marilyn Davis

MS. Operation Lifesaver

P.O. Box 26

Petal, MS 39460

Dana Borum

CTE Engineers

650 Poydras Street, Suite

1900

New Orleans, LA 70130

Lee and Kathleen Dautenne

RPC

2191 Emerson Street

New Orleans, LA 70056

Randy Clement

Kenner City Planning

Department

1801 Williams Boulevard

Kenner, LA 70001
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 37

Steve Romano

St. Charles Parish Planning

 and Zoning

P.O. Box 302

Hahnville, LA 70057

Stephanie Stanley

The Times Picayune

1001 N. Highway 190

Covington, LA 70433

Rich Webster

City Business

3440 Laurel

New Orleans, LA 70115

Nick & Shirley Giambelluca

4701 N. Turnbull Drive

Metairie, LA 70002

Chris Sliwinski

Fernandez Plans

137 N. Telemachus

New Orleans, LA 70119

Justin Harper

V.S. Coast Guard

USCG District 8

501 Magazine Street

New Orleans, LA 70115

John & Ruth Cetinich

STV, Incorporated

908 Smith Drive

Metairie, LA 70005

Loyd Luton

RCLC

521 N. Causeway Boulevard

Mandevilla, LA

Geoffrey Hartnett

Billes/Manning Architects

650 Poydras Street

Suite 1250

New Orleans, LA 70130

Charlie Cox

Amtrak Operation Lifesaver

1001 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70113

Maggie Woodruff

NO Regional Chamber of

 Commerce

601 Poydras Street, Suite

1700

New Orleans, LA 70130

Jim Amdal

UNO/CUPA

1600 Canal #727

New Orleans, LA 70112

Paul Waidhas

Burk-Kusinpeter

4176 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70119

Keith Baroul

VPI

527 W Esplanade

Kenner, LA 70065

Michele Branigan

Councilman

City of Kenner

1801 Williams

Kenner, LA 70062

Stephon & April Black

St. Charles Parish

14 Bridle Path

St. Rose, LA 70087

Neil Giurintana

WGNO-TV

#2 Canal Street, Suite 2800

New Orleans, LA 70130

Gordon Brockman

21290 Florence Road

Mandeville, LA 70147

Michael Flora

MRF Enterprises

250 Brownswitch #130

Slidell, LA 70458

Jeanie Black

City of Kenner

1801 Williams

Kenner, LA 70062

Terry W. Howey

Administrator

State of Louisiana

Department of Natural

 Resources

Coastal Management

 Division

P.O. Box 44487

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-

4487

Phil Leinbach, President

Little Tchefuncte River

Association

P.O. Box 1466

Folsom, LA 70437

Rogue Norman

AMTRAK0IBEW

1001 Loyola

New Orleans, LA

Frank Simone

7208 Brighton Drive

Harahan, LA 70123

Joyce M. Porter

ASW-640D

Federal Aviation

 Administration

2601 Meacham Boulevard

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298

Louis T. Cerny

Railroad Consultant

310 Summit Hall Road

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Jack N. Mowel

The Survey System

1030 Goff Rd

Baltimore, MD 21221

Jephrey Rebert

York Company

 Planning Commission

100 West Market

Suite 201

York, PA 17401-1313

John Bieme

Associated Press

222 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 38

Stoney Fraley

Harford County

220 S. Main Street

Bel Air, MD 21014

Walt Crafts

503 N. Chapel Gate Lane

Baltimore, MD 21229

Paul Singer

Indusco Group

1200 W. Hamburg Street

Baltimore, MD 21230

Cornell Dypski

House of Delegates

638 S. Decker Ave

Baltimore, MD 21224

Joseph P. Monaco

Intelect Corporation

1301 S. Baylis Street

Suite 123

Baltimore, MD 21224

Jeremy Mocny

WR&A

2315 St. Paul

Baltimore, MD 21228

Frank Murphy

Department of Public Works

417 E. Fayette St., Room 524

Baltimore, MD 21202

Wolde Arasa

Department of Public Works

417 E. Lafayette Street

Room 616

Baltimore, MD 21202

John Cain

Baltimore City Council

100 N. Holiday Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Grace & Gerhart Dohmeir

St. Peter’s Lutheran

9613 Haven Farm

Road #L

Perry Hall, MD 21128

Bill Novak

The Environmental

 Company, Incorporated

1611 N. Kent Street

Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22209

Michael Faid

Thyssen General Elevator

601 Nursery Road

Linthicum, MD 21090

Francis Koerber

Fluidarts

3803 5th Street

Baltimore, MD 21225

Greg Fox

Constellation Energy Source

111 Market Place #530

Baltimore, MD 21202

Mark Hutton

Edwards & Kekey

Incorporated

1401 S. Edgewood

Baltimore, MD 21220

Gary Griffin

I..B.E.W. Loca #24

2701 W. Patapsco Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21230

Marlene Koppel

c/o; Councilwoman

 Rikki Spector

11410 Woodland Drive

Lutherville, MD 21093

Joyce Middleton

CIRS Signaling

1210 Glenhaven Road

Baltimore, MD 21239

Sam MacDonald

Laurel Leader

315 S. Chapel Street

Baltimore, MD 21231

Melvin L. Stukes

City Council

City Hall, Room 553

315 S. Chapel Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Bernard Young

City Council of Baltimore

100 N. Holiday, Room 513

Baltimore, MD 21202

Edmund Bacon

2117 Locust Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Cecelia Brown

MTA

2027 W. North Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21217

Salvata Cosentine

Benchmark Companies

 Incorporated

10860 Beech Creek Drive

Columbia, MD

Robert Berkovits

IIT Research Institute

Department DST

185 Admiral Cochrane Drive

Annapolis, MD 21401

Vonnetta Cornish

American University

26 Enchanted Hills Lane,

#101

Owings Mill, MD 21117

Robert Ward

MVA

6601 Ritchie Highway

Baltimore, MD 21062

Sarah Aura

MVA

6601 Ritchie Highway

Baltimore, MD 21062

Jane Willeboordse

Baltimore County

 Office of Communications

Investment Building

Suite 800

Towson, MD

Geza Hanniker III

European Train Entusiasts

97 Fox Run Drive

York, PA 17403
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 39

Rudolph E. Linder

US Department of

 Transportation

519 St. Francis Road

Towson, MD 21286

Tom Masog

MNCPPC

14741 Gov. Ogden Bowie F

Drive

4th Floor

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Ben Polakoff

Shapiro Olander

36 South Charles Street

20th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21202

George Tyson

1825 N. Forest Park Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21207

Stephen Delguidice

Frederic R. Harris

201 N. Charles Street

Suite 2602

Baltimore, MD 21201

Robert Sewall

Maryland Port

Administration

6002 Riverdale Road

Riverdale, MD 20737

J. Gary Lee

Lee Organization,

Incorporated

5906 Wolvary Lane

Baltimore, MD 21210

Brian Jorbe

URS Corporation

4 N. Park Drive

Suite 300

Hunt Valley, MD 21093

Brennen Jensen

City Paper

812 Park Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21201

Ervin McDaniel III

Citizen/BGE

5202 St. Georges

Baltimore, MD 21212

John Seifizrt

Kann & Associates

115 2nd Avenue SE

Glen Burnie, MD 21001

Ed Strocko

Maryland Department of

 Transportation

10 Elm Road

BWI Airport

Linthicum, MD 21090

Don Trice

Heffner & Webor

856 Elkridge Landing Road

Linthicum, MD 21090

Erniz Grecco

Metro Balto AFL-CIO

2701 W. Patapsco Avenue

Suite 116

Baltimore, MD 21230

Gerry Hiller

Whiting Turner

300 E. Joppa Road

Baltimore, MD 21286

Carl Ribbon

Self-Employed

17436 Cherokee Lane

Olney, MD 20832

Phil Fraslino

Action Committee for Transit

75 Eastwaye Avenue, #611

Silver Spring, MD 20901

Adam Gordan

Baltimore Regional

Partnership

1209 Calvert Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Clarence Bishop

Washington-Baltimore

 Olympics

1875 Eye Street, NW

Suite 675

Washington, DC 20006

Gladys Inman

CPHA

P.O. Box 11392

Baltimore, MD 21239

Parker Pennington

Baltimore Heritage Line

 Street Car

1900 Thames Street, #429

Baltimore, MD 21202

S. Gray

6510 Paper Place

Highland, MD 20777

V. McGuire

8070 Fetlock Court

Ellicott City, MD 21043

B. Sollner Webb

West Laurel Civic Asst

17200 Melbourne Drive

Laurel, MD 20707

K. Philipsen

1000 Friends of Maryland

429 N. Eutaw Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Natalie Latham

Anne Arundel County

2664 Riva Road

Annapolis, MD 21401

Karen Taylor

Annapolis Regional

 Transportation

 Management Association

151 West Street, Suite 101

Annapolis, MD 21401

Fred Jordan

F.E. Jordan Associates

90 New Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Barbara Sollner-Webb

17200 Melbourne Drive

Laurel, MD 20707

Danny Rakestraw

3960 Howard Hughes

Suite 200

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Kim Bush

500 S. Grand Central

Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89155
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 40

Laura Jane Spina

2480 E. Tompkins

Las Vegas, NV 89121

Denny Weddle

3900 Paradise Road

Suite T-110

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Don Ritchie

6226 W. Sahara

Las Vegas, NV 89110

Michael Ramirez

6226 W. Sahara MS26

Las Vegas, NV 89151

John Hiatt

8180 Placid Street

Las Vegas, NV 89123

Dan Smith

5464 Olivebrook Court

Las Vegas, NV 89120

Charles Morgan

1020 Neil Armstrong Circle

Las Vegas, NV 89145

Robert Smith

3960 Howard Hughes

Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Marc Reisman

123 E. Washington Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Joe Pelolor

123 E. Washington Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Bill Wells

4505 Maryland Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89154

Launce Raiff

800 S. Valley View

Las Vegas, NV 89107

Mr. & Mrs. George Tate

5880 Annie Oakley

Las Vegas, NV 89120

Patrick Coyne

4827 Camino Hermoso

North Las Vegas, NV 89031

Steve Henson

123 E. Washington

Las Vegas, NV 89101

John Raines

3960 Howard Hughes

Parkway

Suite 200

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Jill Jackson

2480 E. Tompkins #103

Las Vegas, NV 89121

Brooke Richter

820 S. Arlington Mill #303

Arlington, VA 22204

Tom Ayres

201 Las Vegas Boulevard

South

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Dave Owen

P.O. Box 13172

Las Vegas, NV 89112

Rick Imker

Pacific Institute for

Applied Ergonomics

P.O. Box 80272

Las Vegas, NV 89180-0272

James D. Morefield

Botanist

Nevada Natural Heritage

 Program

Dept. of Conservation and

 Natural Resources

1550 East College Parkway

Suite 145

Carson City, NV 89706-

7921

Jane Feldman, Conservation

Chair

The Toiyabe Chapter of the

 Sierra Club

Nevada and Eastern

 California

P.O. Box 8096

Reno, NV 89507

Jeff van Ee

Associate Director, Southern

 Nevada

Nevada Outdoor Recreation

 Association

P.O. Box 1245

Carson City, NV 89702-

1245

Mayor Ron Arnoni

3624 Brownsville Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15227

Tim Bagley

McDonald Borough

121 North Street

McDonald, PA

Baker, Richard

Bayer

1206 Shenbrook Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15241

Al Balimgartner

R.P.E.

PO Box 405

Bridgeville, PA 15017

Arlene Barker

Homer City Borough

Indiana County

77 North Lincoln Street.

Homer City, PA 15748

Alex Barron

University of Pittsburgh

Urban Studies

Tower C 313

3990 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Wes Blaha

Monroeville Area Chamber

of Commerce

Chamber of Commerce

Building

4268 Northern Pike

Monroeville, PA 15146

Frank Bova

4051 Edge Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15227-3411
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 41

Dr. Alfred Brown

AAWU

242 Robinson Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Chuck Imbrogno

SPC

425 Sixth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Richard Connors

Gannett Fleming

Foster Plaza III, Suite 200

601 Holiday Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15216

Nick Damico

2010 Lacrosse Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15218

Scott Dellett

Municipality of Murrysville

4100 Sardis Road

Murrysville, PA 15668

Denny Diffenderfer

Norwin Chamber of

 Commerce

1020 Ninth Avenue

Irwin, PA 15642

Grant Ervin

Pittsburgh Community

 Reinvestment Group

1000 California Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15223

Richard Faystan

Stop the Vio Lowers

 Committee

302 Climax Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15210

John Fitzgerald

112 Marie Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15237

R. Fratto

Pennsylvania Representative

 John Pippy’s Office

925 Broadhead Road

Moon Township, PA 15108

Brad Goldblatt

AAA

111 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard

Pittsburgh, PA 15228

Dan Griffin

Allegheny County Chamber

 Federation

One Bigelow Square

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Jeff Habay

PA House of Representatives

1486 Butler Plank Road

Glenshaw, PA 15116

Bruce Haines

U.S.S

600 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2749

F. Haohiu

GASP, Sierra Club

3700 Venango Avenue

Munhall, PA 15120

Pat Hassett

DCP Pittsburgh

200 Ross Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15217

Kent Hufford

Leadership Pittsburgh

425 Sixth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Seth Hufford

Leadership Pittsburgh

425 Sixth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Mark Karolski

Buchart – Horn, Incorporated

7 Wood St., 2nd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15237

Kyle Lebonot

XACTIX, Incorporated

2403 Sidney Street, Suite 565

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Todd Leriotis

140 Lavale Drive

Monroeville, PA 15146

Royce Lorentz

Borough of Slippery Rock

306 Normal Avenue

Slippery Rock, PA

Raymond Love

Stimple & Ward

3400 Babcock Boulevard

Pittsburgh, PA 15237

Samuel Manganello

US Steel

Technical Center

Monroeville, PA 15146

Chris Masciantonio

Commonwealth

1700 Labor and Industry

Harrisburg, PA

Don Matzzie

Linare Consulting

211 Vernon Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15228

N.P. McQuin

Electrical Power Consultant

1610 Basil Street

N. Versailles, PA 15137

Kathleen Miller

Transportation Department

University of Pittsburgh

325 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Dave Moink

DJM

Project Management

3205 Kennebec Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15241

Pete Moller

USX Realty

600 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Jim Moorcroft

Michael Baker

420 Rouser Road

Coraopolis, PA 15108

Mossie Murphy

Raymond James Associates

436 7th Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 42

Abe Naperstek

Office of Jim Roddey

426 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Ernie Part,

Partech Planning Resources

325 Commerce Street

Wilmerding, PA 15148

Ken Pasterar

Gannett Fleming

209 Gladstone Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15217

Chuck Quinlan

P.U.M.P.

1652 Kelton Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15216

Mark Rauterkus

Rauterkus .Com

108 S. 12th Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Rich Redmerski

Hempfield Area School

 District

949 Hillcrest Drive

GBG, PA 15601

Brian Reid

Reid Engineering Associates,

 Incorporated

104 Chatam Lane

Monroeville, PA 15146

Frank Rozinsky

Moon Twp. Republican

 Committee

948 Thorn Run Road

Moon Twp., PA 15108

Gust G. Sarris

RCM

320 Fort Duquesne

Boulevard

6A Gateway Towers

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Carole Scheib

Canaan Valley

P.O. Box 4488

Pittsburgh, PA

Eric Schultz

Office of Representative

 Mike Doyle

541 5th Avenue

McKeesport, PA 15213

Rick Schwartz

Allegheny County Council

436 Grant Street, Room 119

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Robert Sette

Translation Services,

 Incorporated

109 Biddle

Pittsburgh, PA 15221

Arthur Sheffield

P.O Box 100110

Pittsburgh, PA 15236

Kimberly Showman

ACTA

2 Penn Center West

Pittsburgh, PA 15276

Mark Sindelar

U.S.S

600 Grant St.

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2749

Jon Smith

A.C.T.C.

2533 Dalemont Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15216

Phil Snee

U.S.S

600 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2749

Larry A. Taylor

A.C.T.C

4920 Center Avenue, #605

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Guy A. Travaglio

Pennsylvania House of

 Representatives

138 E. Jeff Street

Butler, PA 16001

D. Trerice

CAMRAC

570 Beatty Road

Monroeville, PA 15146

Bernard Von Sosen

Voith Transmismers

(Schorfenberg)

25 Winship Road

York, PA 17402

Glenn Walsh

Duquesne Incline

633 Royce Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15243-1149

Mike Walsh

Office of Senator Allen

 Kukovich

9 North Main Street

Gettsberg, PA

John D. Weinhold,

1232 Shadycrest Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15216-3018

Cindy Wells

PTM

53 E. Orchard Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15202

Carl Wilhelm

5527 Kentucky Avenue #1

Pittsburgh, PA 15232

Bob Ziskey

Pennsylvania Department

 of Transportation

45 Thoms Run

Bridgeville, PA 15017

Christina Bosley

611 Olympia Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15211

Patrick W. Zubrow

2337 Orlando Place

Pittsburgh, PA 15235

Paula M. Kovacs

1717 R Street ,NW, #310

Washington, DC 20009

Michael T. Grande

2903 Stonecliffe Drive

Monroeville, PA 15146
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 43

Maury H. Burgwin

5906 Callowhill Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15206

Sharon R. Spell

40 Grape Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15210

Vanessa Lund

809 St James Street

Pittsburgh, PA. 15232

Anne-Marie Lubenau

936 S. Braddock Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15221

Danielle S. Pekich

2144 W. 7th Street, #8

Cleveland, OH 44113

Thomas O. Oyler, Jr.

Project Review Specialist

Department of Agriculture

 Commonwealth of

 Pennsylvania

Bureau of Farmland

 Protection

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408

Matt N. Lindner

5733 Holden Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15232

Calvin K. Clinton, Sr.

African American Workers

 Union

President

7801 Kelly Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15208

David Densmore

Supervisor

The Pennsylvania Field

 Office of the Fish and

 Wildlife Service

315 South Allen Street

Suite 322

State College, PA 16801-

4850

Richard Bauman

Washington Group

130 Old Y Road

Golden, CO 80401

Carrie Salvary

556 Tyler Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Phil Oleksyk

WW Rail DC

3 Erickson Road

Severna Park, MD 21146

Anne Chettle

HSGTA

1010 Mass. Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2000

Joe Kiernan

HSGTA

1010 Mass. Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2000

Mark Dysar

HSGTA

1010 Mass. Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2000

John Sullivan

APCA

1225 Eye Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

Tom Bick

Kilpatrick Stockton

200 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Leo Cannon

Lecket/HSGTA

905 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC

Jeffrey A. Quay

Michael Baker, Jr.

 Incorporated

420 Rouser Road

Moon Twp., PA 15108

Romi Shakra

Parsons Transportation

Group

10 East Baltimore Street

Suite 801

Baltimore, MD 21202

Peter Allan

306 Potomac Drive

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-

 3123

David N. Billow, P.E., S.E.

Director, Engineered

 Structures

Portland Cement

 Association

5420 Old Orchard Raod

Skokle, IL 60077-1083
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

G - 44

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

H - 1

APPENDIX H – ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

This section presents pertinent terminology used throughout the noise and vibration

sections of this document. Terminology is generally consistent with ANSI standards

S1.1-1994, S12.8-1998, S12.18-1994 and S1.4-1983 (R1997), as well as Johnson, et al.

(Johnson, 1991.)

A-Weighting: The weighting network used to account for changes in level sensitivity as

a function of frequency. The A-weighting network de-emphasizes the high (6.3 kHz and

above) and low (below 1 kHz) frequencies, and emphasizes the frequencies between 1

kHz and 6.3 kHz, in an effort to simulate the relative response of the human ear. See also

frequency weighting.

Acoustic Energy: Commonly referred to as the mean-square sound-pressure ratio,

sound energy, or just plain energy, acoustic energy is the square of the ratio of the meansquare sound pressure (often frequency weighted), and the reference mean-square sound

pressure of 20 μPa, the threshold of human hearing. It is arithmetically equivalent to

10(SPL/10), where SPL is the sound pressure level, expressed in decibels.

Ambient Noise: All-encompassing sound that is associated with a given environment,

usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far.

Background Noise: All-encompassing sound of a given environment without the

sound source of interest.

Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL, denoted by the symbol, Ldn): A 24-

hour time-averaged LAE, adjusted for average-day sound source operations. The

adjustment includes a 10-dB penalty for operation, denoted by the symbol N, occurring

between 2200 and 0700 hours, local time. Ldn is computed as follows:

Ldn = LAE + 10*log10(Nday + 10*Nnight) - 49.4(dB)

where:

LAE = Sound exposure level in dB;

Nday = Number of vehicle pass-bys between 0700 and 1900 hours, local

time;

Nnight = Number of vehicle pass-bys between 1900 and 0700 hours, local

time; and

49.4 = A normalization constant which spreads the acoustic energy

associated with highway vehicle pass-bys over a 24-hour period,

i.e., 10*log10(86,400 seconds per day) = 49.4 dB.

Decibel (dB): A unit of measure of sound level. The number of decibels is calculated

as ten times the base-10 logarithm of the square of the ratio of the mean-square sound

pressure (often frequency weighted), and the reference mean-square sound pressure of 20

μPa, the threshold of human hearing. The following figure presents a comparison of

typical A-weighted decibel sound levels.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

H - 2

Figure H-1 - A-Weighted Sound Levels

Energy: See Acoustic energy.

Equivalent Sound Level (TEQ, denoted by the symbol, LAeqT): Ten times the

base-10 logarithm of the square of the ratio of time-mean-square, instantaneous Aweighted sound pressure, during a stated time interval, T (where T=t2-t1), divided by the

squared reference sound pressure of 20 μPa, the threshold of human hearing; e.g., 1HEQ,

denoted by the symbol, LAeq1H, represents the hourly equivalent sound level. LAeqT is

related to LAE by the following equation:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

H - 3

LAeqT = LAE - 10*log10(t2-t1) (dB)

where LAE = Sound exposure level in dB.

LAE: See Sound exposure level.

LAeqT: See Equivalent sound level.

Ldn: See Day-night average sound level.

Maximum Sound Level (MXFA or MXSA, denoted by the symbol, LAFmx or

LASmx): The maximum, A-weighted sound level associated with a given. Fast-scale

response (LAFmx) and slow-scale response (LASmx) characteristics effectively damp a

signal as if it were to pass through a low-pass filter with a time constant of 125 and 1000

milliseconds, respectively. Note: Fast response is typically used for measuring individual

highway vehicle pass-bys. Slow response is recommended for the measurement of longterm impact due to highway traffic noise, where impulsive noises are not dominant, and

is also used for measurements of sound source levels, which vary slowly as a function of

time, such as aircraft.

Noise: Any unwanted sound. “Noise” and “sound” are used interchangeably in this

document.

Noise Barrier: The structure, or structure together with other material, that potentially

alters the noise at a site from a BEFORE condition to an AFTER condition.

Sound Exposure Level (SEL, denoted by the symbol, LAE): Over a stated time

interval, T (where T=t2-t1), ten times the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of a given time

integral of squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, and the product of the

reference sound pressure of 20 μPa, the threshold of human hearing, and the reference

duration of 1 sec. The time interval, T, must be long enough to include a majority of the

sound source’s acoustic energy. As a minimum, this interval should encompass the 10

dB down points.

In addition, LAE is related to LAeqT by the following equation:

LAE = LAeqT + 10*log10(t2-t1) (dB)

where LAeqT = Equivalent sound level in dB (see definition above).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

H - 4

Figure H-2 - Graphical Representation of LAE

10 dB

t1t Time (sec) 2

Maximum

Sound Level

LAE - Shaded Area

Under Curve
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

I - 1

APPENDIX I – FLORA AND FAUNA

Table I-1 - Maglev Alternatives Flora and Fauna Species (common names)

Flora Fauna

California

Black walnut

Fremont

 cottonwood

Hoover's woolystar

Live oak

Marsh sandwort

Reed grass

Santa Ana sucker

Spine flower

Willow (several

 species)

Arroyo chub

Santa Ana sucker

Florida

Blodgett's ironweed

Blue butterwort

Blunt-leaved

 peperomia

Brown-haired

 snoutbean

Cabbage palm

Cinnamon fern

Curtiss' milkweed

Giant leatherfern

Hand fern

Lakala's mint

Large-flowered

 rosemary

Many-flowered

 grass pink

Nodding pinewood

Queen's delight

Rain lily

Red maple

Royal fern

Sand pine

Sand-dune spurge

Satinleaf

Sea grass

Shell mound prickly pear

 cactus

Small-leaved melanthera

Snowy orchid

Tampa vervain

Terrestrial peperomia

Tiny polygala

Wax myrtle

Wild coco

Wild pine

Florida mouse

West Indian manatee

American oystercatcher

Arctic peregrine falcon

Black skimmer

Brown pelican

Florida burrowing owl

Florida scrub-jay

Least tern

Limpkin

Little blue heron

Piping plover

Red-cockaded

 woodpecker

Reddish egret

Roseate tern

Snowy egret

Southeastern American

 kestrel

Southern bald eagle

Tricolored heron

White ibis

Wood stork

Atlantic sturgeon

Common snook

American alligator

Atlantic green turtle

Atlantic logger-

 head turtle

Atlantic salt marsh

 snake

Blue-tailed mole

 skink

Eastern indigo

 snake

Florida pine snake

Gopher frog

Gopher tortoise

Roseate spoonbill

Sand skink

Short-tailed snake

Florida

 grasshopper

Sparrow

Georgia

Black willow

Blackberry

Broomsedge

Chestnut oak

Chinese privet

Dandelions

Dog fennel

Eastern red cedar

Ebony spleenwort

Fescue

Flowering dogwood

Goldenrod

Japanese

 honeysuckle

Juncus

Oak

Pignut hickory

Pine

Ragweed

Red maple

Sheep sorrel

Smartweed

Southern cattail

Sweetgum

White oak

Yellow poplar

Bat

Beaver

Fox

Mouse

Muskrat

Rabbit

Skunk

Squirrel

Vole

Water shrew

White-tailed deer

Woodchuck

American robin

Barred owl

Blue jay

Bluebird

Bobwhite quail

Brown thrasher

Common snipe

Cooper's hawk

Eastern meadowlark

European starling

Great blue heron

Mallard

Mockingbird

Mourning dove

Red-shouldered hawk

Red-tailed hawk

Screech owl

Warbler

Wild turkey

Wood duck

Woodpecker

Black racer snake

Bull snake

Bullfrog

Green frog

Painted turtle

Rat snake

Salamander

Snapping turtle

Louisiana

Alligator weed

Bald cypress

Black rush

Bulltongue

Bulrush

Buttonbush

Cattail

Duckweed

Groundseltree

Marsh-hay cordgrass

Pennywort

River seedbox

Saltgrass

Sedge

Smartweed

Smooth beggarstick

Smooth cordgrass

Soft rush

Spike-rush

Switchgrass

Water hyacinth

Water tupelo

Wax myrtle

Catfish

Crappy

Largemouth bass

Sunfish

Black drum

Blue crab

Gulf Menhaden

Southern flounder

Other marine and estuarine species

Maryland

Groundhog

Raccoon

White-tailed deer

Canada geese
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

I - 2

Nevada

Creosotebush

Hopsage

Indigo bush

Mormon tea

Shadscale

White burrobush

Wolfberry

Bighorn sheep

Coyote

Elk

Ground squirrel

Jackrabbit

Kangaroo rat

Kit fox

Mule deer

Pocket mouse

Desert tortoise

Side-blotched lizard

Whiptail

Pennsylvania

Aster

Black cherry

Dogwood

Eastern hemlock

Goldenrod

Grass

Grennbrier

Hawthorn

Hickory

Multiflora rose

Northern red oak

Raspberry

Red maple

Sugar maple

Sumac

Viburnum

White oak

Yellow poplar

Beaver

Cottontail rabbit

Eastern chipmunk

Gray squirrel

Meadow vole

Mink

Mole

Mouse

Muskrat

Raccoon

Red fox

Red squirrel

Smoky shrew

Southern bog lemming

Star-nosed mole

Striped skunk

Virginia opossum

Vole

White-tailed deer

Woodchuck

American kestrel

Barred owl

Belted kingfisher

Black-billed cuckoo

Brown-headed cowbird

Common grackle

Coopers hawk

Eastern bluebird

Eastern wild turkey

Flycatcher

Great horned owl

Indigo bunting

Killdeer

Long-eared owl

Northern cardinal

Red-shouldered hawk

Red-tailed hawk

Red-winged blackbird

Ruffed grouse

Rufus-sided Towhee

Sharpshinned hawk

Sparrow

Swallow

Swamp sparrow

Thrush

Timice

Vireo

Warbler

Woodpecker

Wren

Black rat snake

Eastern box turtle

Eastern garter

 snake

Eastern milk

 snake

Five-lined skink

Frog

Mountain chorus

 frog

Northern black

 racer snake

Northern ring

 neck snake

Painted turtle

Salamander

Snapping turtle

Toad

Water snake

Woodland

 salamander

Source: (CM, 2000); (FDOT, 2000); (ARC, 2000); (GNOEA, 2000); (MTA, 2000); (CNSSTC, 2000); (PAAC, 2000)
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 1

APPENDIX J - REFERENCES

ACGIH, 1999. “Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for Chemical Substances and Physical

Agents and Biological Exposure Indices.” American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1999. (annual at

http://www.acgih.org).

ANL, 1989. Maglev Vehicles and Superconducting Technology Integration

of High Speed Ground Transportation into the Air Travel

System. Johnson, L. R., D. M. Rote, J. R. Hull, H. T. Coffey, J.

G. Daley, and R. F. Geise. Center for Transportation Research,

Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Argonne

National Laboratory. April 1989.

ANL, 1993. MAGLEV 93: 13th International Conference on Magnetically

Levitated Systems and Linear Drives. Argonne National

Laboratory. CONF-930550. May 19-21, 1993.

ANSI, 1980. “Methods of Measurement of Radio Noise Emissions from Low

Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range 1KHz to 1

GHz” American National Standards Institute. ANSI C63.4. 1980.

ANSI, 1987. ANSI Standard for Electromagnetic Compatibility Limits –

Recommended Practice. ANSI C63.12. 1987.

ANSI, 1992. ANSI Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise

Emmissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in

thr Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz. ANSI C63.4-1992. July 1992.

ANSI/IEEE, 1987. IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency

Electric and Magnetic Fields from AC Power Lines. IEEE STD 644-

1987. March 16, 1987.

APTA, 1998. Standard for the Development of an Electromagnetic Compatibility

Plan. APTA/PRESS: SS-E-010-98. 1998.

ARC, 2000. Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Project. Programmatic

Environmental Assessment. Atlanta Regional Commission. February

2000.

ARC(b),2000. Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Project. Project

Description. Atlanta Regional Commission. June 2000.

BUNR, 1997. Umweltpolitik (Environmental Policy), Bundesministerium für

Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Federal Ministry for

Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety), Verordnung

uber Elektromagnetische Felder- 26 BlmSchV (EMF Ordinance). Jan

1, 1997.

CENELEC(a), 1998. Railway Applications - Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 1:

General. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

(CENELEC). European Provisional Standard prEN 50121-1.

February 1998.

CENELEC(b), 1998. Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 2:

Emission of the Whole Railway System to the Outside World.

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

(CENELEC). European Provisional sStandard prEN 50121-2.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 2

February 1998.

CENELEC(c), 1998. Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 3-1:

Rolling Stock - Train and Complete Vehicle. European Committee for

Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). European Provisional

Standard prEN 50121-3-1. February 1998.

CENELEC(d), 1998. Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility,

Part 3-2: Rolling Stock –Apparatus. European Committee for

Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). European Provisional

Standard prEN 50121-3-2. February 1998.

CENELEC(e), 1998. Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 4:

Emission and Immunity of the Signaling and Telecommunications

Apparatus. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

(CENELEC). European Provisional Standard prEN 50121-4.

February 1998.

CENELEC(f), 1998. Railway Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 5:

Fixed Power Supply Apparatus and Installations. . European

Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC).

European Provisional Standard prEN 50121-5. February 1998.

CENELEC(g), 1998. Limits and Methods of Measurement of Radio Disturbance

Characteristics of Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) Radio

Frequency Equipment. EN 55011. 1998.

CFR, 1992. 47CFR, Telecommunications, Part 15- Radio Frequency Devices

(FCC Regulations Revised Oct., 1992).

CM(a), 2000. California MAGLEV Deployment Program Environmental

Assessment. California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,

California High Speed Rail Authority and Southern California

Association of Governments. February 2000.

CM(b), 2000. California MAGLEV Deployment Program Environmental

Assessment. California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,

California High Speed Rail Authority and Southern California

Association of Governments. June, 2000.

CNSSTC(a), 2000. California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Las Vegas to Prim

Segment Environmental Assessment. California-Nevada Super Speed

Train Commission. February 2000.

CNSSTC(a), 2000. California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Project. Project Description.

California-Nevada super Speed Train Commission. June, 2000.

Dietrich et.al., 1999. Survey and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF)

Public Exposure in the Transportation Environment. F. Dietrich and

W. Jacobs, ERM for DOT Volpe Center and DOE, 1999. NTIS PB

99-130908.

DOD, 1993. Electromagnetic (Radiated) Environment Considerations For Design

And Procurement Of Electrical And Electronic Equipment, Subsystems

And Systems Part 1A/1B. MIL-HDBK-231/235. JCS. 01 May 1993.

DOD, 1995. Department of Defense National Air Space System Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Electronic Systems

Center, Hanscomb AFB, Massachusetts. 18 July 1995.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 3

DOD, 1997(a). Electromagnetic Compatibility Requirements, Systems. MIL-E6051D. 1997. [MIL-E-6051D superceded by MIL-STD-464 -

Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements For Systems.

USAF. 18 March 1997]

DOD, 1997(b). Electromagnetic Environmental Effects on Platforms, Systems And

Equipment. JCS. MIL-HDBK-237B. 01 Oct 1997.

DOD, 1999. Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference

Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment. AF. MIL STD-461E.

20 August 1999.

DOD/DOT, 1999. 1999 Federal Radionavigation Plan, DOT-VNTSC-RSPA-98-1/DOD

4650.5. February 2000.

DOE, 1996. “EMF in the Workplace.” U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. September 1996.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid

DOT 1990. Report to Congress, Assessment of the Potential for Magnetic

Levitation Transportation Systems in the United States, Moving

America, New Directions, New Opportunities. U.S. Department of

Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration. June 1990.

DOT, 1992. Safety of High Speed Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems:

Magnetic Field Testing of the TR-07 Maglev Vehicle and System.

(Volume 1 - Analysis. Vol. 2 - Appendices) DOT/FRA/ORD-92/09

and DOT-VNTSC-FRA-92-6. April, 1992.

DOT, 1993(a). Comparison of Magnetic and Electric Fields of Conventional and

Advanced Transportation Systems. DOT/FRA/ORD-93/07.

DOT, 1993(b). Compendium of Executive Summaries from the Maglev System

Concept Definition. DOT/FRA/NMI-93/02. March 1993. See BTS

posting at http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CES.html

DOT, 1993(c). EMF Exposure Environments Summary Report. DOT/FRA/ORD93/28. 1993.

DOT, 1993(d). Review of Existing EMF Guidelines, Standards and Regulations.

DOT/FRA/ORD-93/27. 1993.

DOT, 1993(e). Potential Health Effects of Low Frequency EMF Due to Maglev and

Other Electric Rail Systems. DOT/FRA/ORD-93/31. 1993.

DOT, 1993(f). An Overview of Biological Effects and Mechanisms Relevant to EMF

Exposures from Mass Transit and Electric Rail Systems.

DOT/FRA/ORD-93/19. 1993.

DOT, 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement/report (FEIS/R) for Northeast

Corridor Improvement Project Electrification, New Haven, CT to

Boston, MA, Executive Summary and 4 volumes including Technical

Studies on EMF Health Effects (Sec. 5.1). DOT Volpe Center. 1994.

DOT, 1995. Record of Decision (ROD) for FEIS/R and 4(f) Statement.

DOT/FRA/RDV-94/01-G and DOT-VNTSC-FRA-94-12. May 1995.

EIA, 1998. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1991,”

DOE/EIA-0573(97) (Washington, DC, October 1998).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 4

FAA, 1994. 1994 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan, p. 6-18. Federal Aviation

Administration. 1994.

FCC, 1997(a). “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to

Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.“ FCC Office Of Engineering

And Technology (OET). Edition 97.01. FCC Bulletin 65 Edition

97.01. August 1997. And Supplement C - Dec 1997.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety

FCC, 1997(b). Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking - “Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Effects of

Radiofrequency Radiation.” FCC 97-303, Aug. 1997 (ET Docket 93-

62).

FCC, 1999. “Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential

Hazards of RFEMF.” OET Bulletin 56, 4th edition. August 1999.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety

FDOT(a), 2000. Florida Maglev System Environmental Assessment. Florida

Department of Transportation and Maglev 2000. March, 2000.

FDOT(b), 2000. Florida Maglev Deployment Program. Project Description. Florida

Department of Transportation and Maglev 200. June 2000.

FRA, 1993. Final Report on the National Maglev Initiative. Federal Railroad

Administration. September, 1993.

FRA, 1997. High-Speed Ground Transportation for America. Federal Railroad

Administration. September, 1997.

FRG, 1995. Schriftenreihe der Bundesaust alt für Arbeitmedizim, Neiderfrequente

Electrische und Magnetische Felder ander TransRapid 0.7. Berlin,

ISBN 3-89429-904-5. 1995. (referenced by applicants, but not

available)

FRG, 1996. Forschungagesellschaft für Energie und Umwelttechnologie, 1996.

(referenced by applicants, but not available)

FRH, 2000. Letter and Technical Attachment from Lin Nathan, Frederic R Harris,

to Paul Valihura, Volpe Center, regarding the technical aspects of

Maglev 2000. April 13, 2000.

FTA, 1995. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,” DOT-T-95-16.

April 1995.

GE, 1994. Handbook of Shielding Principles for Power System Magnetic Fields,”

(2 volumes, EPRI TR-103630-V1 and V2). GE Co., Lenox, MA.

April 1994.

GEC, 1989. German Electrotechnical Commission, DIN VDE 0848, Part 4, Safety

of Electromagnetic Fields: Limits of Field Strength for the Protection

of Persons in the Frequency Range from 0 to 30 KHz.” 1989.

GNOEC(a), 2000. Gulf Coast Maglev Deployment Project Environmental

Assessment. Greater New Orleans Expressway Comission, New

Orleans International Airport, and Regional Planning Commission.

February, 2000.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 5

GNOEC(b), 2000. Gulf Coast Maglev Deployment Project. Project

Description. Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission,

New Orleans International Airport, and Regional Planning

Commission. June 2000.

Grumman, 1989. Benefits of Magnetically Levitated High Speed Transportation

for the United States, Volume 1 Executive Report. The

Maglev Technology Advisory Committee Reporting to the

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works. Grumman Corporation. Bethpage, NY. June 1989.

Henschel, 1990. Magnetic Stray Fields and Electromagnetic Radiation Fields of the

TR07 Transrapid Vehicle. Thyssen Henschel. Report TM 90027.

1990.

ICNIRP, 1994. “Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Static Magnetic Fields.” Health

Physics, Vol. 66, No 1, pp. 100-106. Jan. 1994.

ICNIRP, 1998. “Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time Varying Electric, Magnetic

and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz).” International

Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Health

Physics vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 494-522. April 1998.

IEC, 1995(a). Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Part 4: Testing and

Measuring Techniques - Section 2: Electrostatic Discharge Immunity

Test. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC-61000-4-

2 9 (1995-01). 1995.

IEC, 1995(b). Electromagnetic Compatibility(EMC) - Part 4: Testing and Measuring

Techniques - Section 3: Radiated, Radio Frequency, Electromagnetic

Field Immunity Test. International Electrotechnical Commission

(IEC). IEC-61000-4-3 (1995-02). 1995 and Amendment 1998-1.

1998.

IEC, 1995(c). Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Part 4: Testing and

Measuring Techniques - Section 4: Electrical Fast Transient/Burst

Immunity Test. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

IEC-61000-4-4 (1995-01). 1995.

IEC, 1995(d). Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Part 4: Testing and

Measuring Techniques – Section: 5 Surge Immunity Test.

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC-61000-4-5

(1995-03). 1995.

IEEE, 1982. IEEE Guide For The Installation Of Electrical Equipment To

Minimize Electrical Noise Inputs To Controllers From External

Sources. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

IEEE 518. 1982.

IEEE, 1992(a). “IEEE Standard Recommended Practice for the Measurement of

Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields-RF and Microwave.”

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). C95.3-1991.

August 21, 1992. (Under Revision).

IEEE, 1992(b). IEEE Guide On Electrostatic Discharge (ESD): Characterization Of

The ESD Environment. Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE). IEEE C62.47. 1992.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 6

IEEE, 1995(a). “IEEE Recommended Practice for Instrumentation: Specifications for

Magnetic Flux Density and Electric Field Strength Meters-10 Hz to 3

kHz.” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE

Std 1308-1994. April 1995.

IEEE, 1995(b). IEEE Standard for Withstand Capability Of Relay Systems To

Radiated Electromagnetic Interference From Transceivers. Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE C37.90.2.

1995.

IEEE, 1999(a). “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields 3 kHz to 300 GHz.” Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). C95.1, 1999 Edition

16. April 1999.

IEEE, 1999(b). Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC)

Performance and Functional Requirements. Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Std 1474.1. 1999.

IEEE, 1999(c). Environmental Standards for Transit Rail Car Electronic Equipment.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE P1478. March 15, 2000. (draft standard) http://www.tsd.org/wg.htm

IITRI, 1997. Evaluation of Field Reduction Technologies (2 volumes), IITRI report

for EMF RAPID. Aug. 1997.

Ikehata, 1999. Static Magnetic Fields of Maglev System MLU-002N. M. Ikehata.

RTRI. Letter, personal communication to Dr. A. Brecher April 1999.

IPRA, 1991. “Guidelines on Protection Against Non- Ionizing Radiation (NIR).”

eds. A.S. Duchesne, J.R. A. Lakey and M.H. Repacholi. International

Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). Pergamon Press. 1991.

IPRA, 1994. “Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Static Magnetic Fields”

International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA/INIRC). Health

Physics 66, 100-106. 1994.

KCI, 2000. KCI Technologies, 2000. Email communication by Jose Mantilla,

Volpe Center, with Mark Chesky, KCI Technologies, regarding

Maryland energy section. May 12, 2000.

Johnson, 1991. “Acoustical Measurement Instruments.” Handbook of Acoustical

Measurements and Noise Control. Johnson, D.L., A.H. Marsh, C.M.

Harris. New York: Columbia University, 1991.

LDWF, 2000. Scoping letter submitted to the FRA, regarding environmental impacts

of the Louisiana alternative. State of Louisiana Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries. March 20, 2000.

MTA(a), 2000. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project Environmental Assessment.

Mass Transit Administration. February, 2000.

MTA(b), 2000. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project. Project Description. Mass

Transit Administration. June 2000.

MVP http://www.mvp.dot

NCRP, 1993. “A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to

Radiofrequency Fields.” National Council on Radiation Protection

and Measurements (NCRP) Report 119. 1993.

NIEHS, 1995. “Questions and Answers About EMF.” National Institute of
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 7

Environmental Heath Sciences (NIEHS) and Department of Energy

(DOE). DOE/EE-0040. January 1995.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid

NIEHS, 1998. Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency

Electric and Magnetic Field. National Institute of Environmental

Heath Sciences (NIEHS). Working Group Report, 1998. See

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid

NIOSH, 1997. “Estimating Magnetic Field Exposures of Rail Maintenance Workers.”

AIHA Journal, vol. 58, p. 667-671. September 1997.

NMFS, 2000. Comment letter submitted to the FRA Docket Management Syystem,

regarding environmental impacts on the Louisiana alternative.

Southeast Regional Office. August 8, 2000.

OTA, 1991. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Ways: Tiltrotor

Aircraft & Magnetically Levitated Vehicles. OTA SET507. October

1991

PAAC(a), 2000. Pennsylvania High Speed Maglev Project Environmental Assessment.

Port Authority of Allegheny County and MAGLEV INC. February,

2000.

PAAC(b), 2000 Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project. Project Description. Port

Authority of Allegheny County and MAGLEV Inc., June 2000.

PTG, 2000(a). E-mail communication by Jose Mantilla, Volpe Center, with Robert

DeSanto, Parsons Transportation Group, regarding Georgia energy

section. April 24, 2000.

PTG, 2000(b). Personal communication by Jose Mantilla, Volpe Center, with John

Martin, Parsons Transportation Group, regarding Louisiana energy

section. June 7, 2000.

PTG, 2000(c). Personal communication by Jose Mantilla, Volpe Center, with Jeff

Allen, Parsons Transportation Group, regarding Nevada energy

section. June 7, 2000.

RPC, 1995. Hurricane Incident Transportation Planning; Infrastructure

Improvements for Regional Evacuation, Regional Planning

Commission. September 1995.

RTRI RTRI Japanese maglev home page.

http://www.rtri.or.jp/rd/maglev/html/english

Sasakawa, 1998. “Environmental Magnetic Fields in the Yamanashi Test Line.” T.

Sasakawa, M. Ikehata, J. Kitano. Quarterly Journal of RTRI, vol.39,

No. 2, pp. 78-81. 1998.

SCE, 1999. Southern California Edison. Understanding EMF (Brochure). October

1999. http://www.sce.com/librarysca/pdf/9910_emf.pdf

SCE, 1993 EMF Mitigation Handbook. Southern California Edison. 1993.

SCE, 1993. 3D-FIELDS software package. Southern California Edison. 1993.

SCTC, 2000. Comment letter submitted to the FRA Docket Management System,

regarding environmental impacts of the Nevada alternative. Sierra

Club, Toiyabe Chapter. July 27, 2000.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

J - 8

Sheppard, 1999. “Environmental and Ecological Considerations for Static and ELF

Electric Power Transmission Line Projects,” Asher R. Sheppard.

WHO Conference on EMF Environmental Effects. May, 1999.

UMTA, 1985. Conductive Interference in Rapid Transit Signaling Systems, Volume I:

Theory and Data and Volume II: Suggested Test Procedures. F. Ross

Holstrom. Volpe Transportation Systems Center for Urban Mass

Transit Administration (now FTA). UMTA-MA-06-0153-85-8. Vol.

1 - 1985 and Vol. II - 1897.

UMTA, 1987. “The UMTA Rail Transit EMI/EMC Program: An overview and

Summary,”. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for

DOT/UMTA. February 1987.

UMTA, 1988. Radiated Interference in Rapid Transit Signaling Systems, Volume I:

Theory and Data and Volume II: Suggested Test Procedures. F. Ross

Holstrom. Volpe Transportation Systems Center for Urban Mass

Transit Administration (now FTA). UMTA-MA-06-153-87-2. Vol I –

1988 and Vol. II - 1987.

WHO 1993. “Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz).” World Health

Organization (WHO). WHO Environmental Criteria 137. 1993.

www.who.int/peh-emf.

WHO, 1998(a). “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Extremely Low

Frequency (ELF).” World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Fact

Sheet 205. Nov. 1998. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact205.html.

WHO, 1998(b). “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Public Perception of

EMF Risks.” World Health Organization (WHO). Who Fact Sheet

184. May 1998. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact184.html

WHO, 1998(c). “EMF and Public Health: Physical Properties and Effects on

Biological Systems.” World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Fact

Sheet 182. May, 1998. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact182.html

WHO, 1998(d). “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: The International EMF

Project.” World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Fact Sheet 181.

May 1998. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact181.html

WHO, 1999. “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Radars and Human

Health.” World Health Organization (WHO). Who Fact Sheet 226.

June 1999. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact226.html

WHO, 2000. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Cautionary Policies.

World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Backgrounder. March

2000. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMFPrecaution.htm
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 1

APPENDIX K - SCOPING LETTERS
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 2

David Valenstein 

LOUIS T. CERNY 

Railroad Consultant 

3 l 0 Summit Hall Road 

Gaithersburg. MD 20877 

Phone: 301-9./7-0208 

Environmental Program Mgr, Office of Passenger Programs 

Federal Railroad Administration (RDV JO) 

400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 20) 

Washington, D.C 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

U.S. DEPART MENT OF T RANSPORTA'l.'ION 

l'EDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

Febrnary 14, 2000 

2 pages 

This Jetter is sent to you in response to the FRA notice in the December 29, 1999 Federal 

Register soliciting public input into the development of the scope of the programmatic 

environmental impact statement (PEIS) for the Maglev Development Program. 

In this letter, I will not be discussing specifically safety issues, as my understanding is 

that such safety issues will be addressed in later Federal Register notices. Here I will 

address issues that affect the environmental evaluation, including quality of life issues of 

those near the maglev guideway. 

In general, a maglev should be subject to the same analysis of environmental tradeoffs 

that any fixed guideway system would. This is especially true since most of the 

proposals are in urban or suburban areas with relatively high population densities, and so 

the presence of the maglev system will affect a large number of people. 

The need for environmental input into decisions about whether to place individual line 

segments of a transportation facility on elevated structures, at ground level, or below 

ground, also applies to Maglev. Usually below ground will have the least effect on the 

environment, but it is also usually the most expensive. 

An evaluation of the strength requirements for the vehicles is needed to determine the 

optimum environmental vs. safety trade-off. Different levels of vehicle strength can be 

achieved, but this will affect the vehicles' energy efficiency. There are many ways a 

maglev train could become involved in life-threatening situations for the occupants. 

These include maglev wrecks due to guideway damage (for example, a truck collision 

with a support post), an intrusion of objects into the clearance diagram of the maglev 

vehicle (including its under-running parts), a misaligned turnout, an operation control 

system malfunction, maintenance work, or vandalism. In these instances the veliicle 

strength will become an important consideration for passenger and crew survival, but 

various vehicle strengths need to be environmentally balanced against the economies of 

operation. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 3

Based on my experience at the Maglev test facility near Emsland, Germany, both as a 

rider and from inspection of the infrastmcture there from ground level, this test facility is 

in a flat, rural farming and forest area that has plenty of rainfall each year. This maglev, 

therefore, has not operated in an urban or suburban environment, nor in a df)', dusty 

climate. Noise, echoing off buildings rather than being absorbed by fields and forests, is 

a consideration. The visual intrusion oftbe guideway needs to be evaluated through 

computer drawings from many angles using actual construction dimensions, not only 

from photos where camera angles minimize the visual impact of supports. This is 

aclc!itionally trne where gui<leway turnouts (to allow maglev vehicle~ to switch from one 

track to another) are placed, as these structures, with machinery to move the guideway, 

are massive. These turnouts may also create noise at some level. 

The environmental affects of any specific design need to be evaluated. The guideway 

used on the Transrapid test ;rack at Emsland has a wide, flat top, on which dirt and soot 

could collect if they were in an urban environment. The passing of the maglev at the 

240mph speeds required could sweep much of this off and down from the guideway and 

create dusty, swirling wind not only above the guideway, but to the side and below it, 

because parts of the vehicle under-run the guideway surface. The affect of these possibly 

dusty and high speed wind swirls on the quality of life of those near the guideway need to 

be taken into account. Wimer storms will leave snow and ice to be swirled from the 

!,ruideway. While in a rural area with almost no pedestrians the negative affect might be 

negligible, this would not be true in an urban environment. If the Maglev operates in a 

dry area, these effects will made worse by abrasive dust and small sand particles, which 

also could cause wear to the maglev parts as the dust and sand move in the small air gap 

between the guideway and the vehicle. 

Some of these effects could be mitigated by having a continuous U-shaped protective 

shield that would go under and to the sides of the guideway and lower part of the maglev 

vehicle. This would lower the sound levels below and to the side of the guideway, and 

keep dust and debris from being swept directly off the side of the guideway. Such a 

shield under the guideway and vehicle would also have many safety benefits by 

protecting the under-running parts of the maglev vehicle, and protecting the public from 

these under-running parts. An evaluation of the environmental value of requiring such a 

shield should be part of any environmental review. 

Your consideration of these environmental factors in the scope of the PEIS would be 

appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Louis 

~/~ T. Cerny -- ~ 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 4
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 5

Bruce Ahe rn 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 

Bu.reau for Historic Pre-.servaUon 

Post Office Sox 1026 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026 

Fe b . 14, 2000 

Port Author i ty of Allegheny Count y 

2235 Beaver Avenue Trl F.XPFOITF lll'VJFW (11'" 

Pittsburgh , PA 1 5233 BHP REFERENCE NUMBER 

Re : ER 89- 1675 - 003- X & Y & Z 

FRA : Mag l ev Environmental Assessment 

Alleghe ny a nd We stmorel a nd Counties 

Dear Mr. Ahe r n: 

The Bureau f o r Hi s toric Preser vati on (t he Stat e 

Hi s t ori c Pr e ser va t i on Office ) has revi ewed t he a bove lis t ed 

pr oj ec t i n acco r dance wi th Section 106 of the Nati ona l 

Histor ic Preservation Act of 1966 , as amended in 1980 a nd 

1992, a nd the regulations (36 .CFR Pa r t 800) of t he Advisory 

Council on Histo r ic Pr eserva t ion as r evised i n 1999 . Thes e 

require ments i nc l ude cons i der a tion o f t he proj e ct ' s 

potentia l effect on bot h hist ori c and a r chaeologi ca l 

resources . 

We a r e i n recei pt of t he Env ironmental Assessment for 

t he Pennsylvani a Hi gh Speed Maglev Proj ec t Draft Repor t of 

Pr obabl y Impa cts. For the purposes of Section 106 

consultation th i s report is missing seve ral key compone nt s . 

The ne w r egul at i ons of t he Advi so ry Counci l on Hi storic 

Preservation o ut l i ne the need fo r publ ic and inte res t ed 

parties pa r t icipat i o n i n the identif i ca tio n and evaluation 

o f his t o ric res ources a nd the assessment of pro j e ct affec ts 

on histor ic r esources . This r eoo r t did not out l i ne how 

t hese requir ement s will be me t .- I n addi t i on s ince this i s a 

Proba bl e Impac t r e po r t and t he r e f or e a planni ng study it 

s hould have ide ntified the Area of Po tenti a l Effec t for t he 

project a nd t he methodol ogy for t he i denti fication and 

eva luat ion of h i stori c a nd a rchaeological r e sour c es in the 

APE beyond t he known resour ces. At least the s ection on 

Histo r ic , Archaeologica l a nd Archi tectur a l Resources sho uld 

outl ine the steps to be take n for t hi s pr o j ec t to meet i t s 

Sec t i on 106 con s ul t a t ion r equirements . The r eport did not 

i nc l ude the appr opr iat e legisl ati o n unde r which this .pr o j e ct 

is be i ng r evi ewed. It is too ea~ y i n the process to 

di scus s mi t iga t ion strategies., though we would s upport 

avoidance of all resources i f at a ll possibl e . 

\'le do not agr ee tha t t hi s r eport ha s identifi ed all the 

historic r e source s whi ch ma y be a ffect ed by this pr oject and 

it is, i n our op.ini on1 pr ematur e to discuss t he se l ection of 

alternat i ves. 
DFinal Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 6

Page 2 

B . Ahern 

Feb . 14, 2000 

If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan Zacher at (717) 783 - 9920 . 

cc : FR.II. 

Kurt w. Carr, Chief 

Division of Archaeology 

and Protection 

Tracey Cullen, Michael Baker, Jr. Inc . KWC/smz · 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 7

Appok1l~ by the< 

Pl'(o}i<IN'! of ~hi' U11itetl StiHl':S 

HAr\•ey 8. Gltltt, Ctiair1n:in 

Rot>erl A. Clines 

Marqaret C. Van«rh)-e 

Ap;>outl.E'd tlr tile Mat0)r of !he 

OiSln<t of Co'umbia 

Arrington Oi;io:on 

Or. Pairici<1 £1',.'0od 

Sttrt1ary of Dt'tus.r 

Tl".e Horc0r<:b t Willi::m S. Cohen 

S('Vrctary <11 lhc hu•rlo.t 

The Hortor,lbll' 6rnce- B:i.tibiU 

Adl'lli11iwator ~l Ge11~r,,1l Servitt') 

li'1c Htr.1¢-rable- 0;1·1icf .I. 8.Hr<un 

ChJ:i,.m:in, Commiu~ Of! 

Govt>rnmer1,1t Af!.tir!> 

Uni1e-d $t.1tt$ Sertate 

Tht Hom~r .t~11t r red lhOflll)SO!l 

th.'lifm;)t1, Cor:nl'lilt~ on 

G:'lvermne111 Refom1 

l).S. He~ cf Reptesema~1\-es 

l~ Hcu'lcr.ab!e Dai; Sunon 

M.lyor, D ;«rict of Colu1rbt1 

11'.e HC!''r.ll>!e Atl!h!llij A. W1lh.t.'1:,S 

C11all"ll'liln, Co11nc!I of !he 

Ois!r!ct of Co!un'bta 

TM Hcnorab!e Lnda W. C1Qpr 

E"tcuti•t Dirttlor 

*tgin,'lld W. GrHloth 

TN REPLY REfERTO 

NCPC File No. MP96 

MAR 3 - 200l 

Mr. David Valenstein 

Environmental Program Manager 

Federal Railroad Administration (RDV-10) 

400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 20) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valensein: 

J 

NCPC 

801 ('nnSylv~wi,1 Avcnvt, NW 

Sul1e- :3()1 

W.l$hin9ton, OC 2-0576 

te! 202 '182-7200 

fax 202 4$2-7272 

www.ncpc.90\' 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping for the proposed 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Magnetic Levitation 

(Maglev) Deployment Program. A portion of that planned program involves a 

Maglev demonstration project in the Washington National Capital Region. We 

hope our comments will assist you in refining your agency's course of action 

concerning th.is important project lo the National Capital Region. These scoping 

comments are limited to the Commission's role as the central planning agency for 

the federal government in the National Capital Region and express our general 

views on planning and environmental issues. 

As noted in advanced program description information provided in the federal 

Register, and in infom1ation discussed by the Maryland Department of 

Transportation, the objective of this envir.onmental document is to address various 

issues of the program including documenting how the Baltimore-Washington 

corridor, within the nonheast and southeast national travel corridors, meets 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements and qualifies for selection 

by FRA for funding final design, engineering and construction of a Maglev line. 

The program documentation will also identify benefits to Maryland and the 

District of Columbia if any. 

In the development of the programmatic EIS, routes will be evaluated for a 

Maglev system extending the 40 ± miles between Baltimore and Washington, 

D.C. with the potential for expansion along the northeast corridor to Boston and 

along the southeast corridor to North Carolina. The document will address 

providing direct mainline access to BWI Airport and the possibility of locating 

portions of the Maglev guidcway along segments of 1-95, the BaltimoreWashington Parkway, and the Amtrak and CSX Railroad rights-of-way. 

' ... T I 0 N A. I c A r I T •\ l r l " N ' I -...: (,, l 0 \\ M I ), s I 0 N 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 8

Mr. David Valenstein 

Page2 

Station sites will be evaluated in ownto\\~l Baltimore, at BWI Airpon, near the 

Capital Beltway and at Washington Union Station. 

Tlu·ee major areas will be addressed in the report, as identified by available 

project information: 

• The environmental characteristics of the selected technology, focusing on 

electromagnetic fields, air, energy and noise considerations 

• An environmental screening of the corridors based primarily on existing data 

for all applicable sponsor prepared EA categories, and 

• A descriptive and quantitative estimate of the environmental consequences of 

each of the preferred routes. 

The Commission staff proposes that two additional programmatic issues be 

addressed. These issues are important to evaluate for the context of not only the 

National Capital Region but also the national program as a whole. 

First, we strongly encourage the Federal Railroad Administration to assess 

impacts to historic properties and districts that might be generated by this 

program. We believe that this NEPA document should incorporate the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section I 06 Review 

process, as specified in Section 800.8 of the regulations. Undertaking such 

coordination will require specific additional notice requirements by the FRA to 

the Advisory Council. However, the streamlining of the programmatic EIS with 

this process should result in greater benefits to this programmatic review. 

The secoud issue the Commission believes necessary to evaluate at this stage is a 

visual and aesthetic analysis of both the primary and secondary infrastructure 

needed to support the Maglev gui<leway. In addition to the guideway itself, this 

should include maintenance right-of-way facilities, emergency access route 

requirements, and ancillary power stmctures. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 9

Mr. David Valenstein 

Page 3 

We appreciate your consideration of our comments at th.is stage of the project 

planning. The Conunission anticipates your successfol completion of the 

Environmental Impact Statement and looks forward to review of the draft EIS and 

to the future submission of this project for Conunission review should the 

Baltimore-Washington corridor be subsequently selected for full demonstration 

constrnction. If you have technical questions concerning the information related 

in this letter, you may contact Mr. Eugene Keller, in the Office of Plans Review, 

at (202) 482-7251 . 

Sincerely, 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 10

James H. Jenkins, Jr. 

Secretary 

Mr . .Jsff Roese l 

CTE Engineering, Inc. 

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 

Post Office Box 98000 

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 

(225) 765-2800 

March 20, 2000 

650 Poydras Street, Sui te 1900 

New Orleans, La. 70130 

M.J. "Mike" Foster, Jr. 

Governor 

Re: Gulf Coast MagLev Deployment Project Envi ronmental 

Assessment, Februar y 29, 2000 

Dear Roesel : 

Personnel of o ur techni cal staff have reviewed the above referenced 

document and do not concur with the findings. There are significant 

environment ally sensitive issues that are not addr essed withi n this document, 

such as but not limi ted to, protect ed species of birds. The proposed r outes on 

both the north and south shore of Lake Po ntchartrain will adversely impact 

nesting s i tes of the bald eagle . The north shore area also contains nesting 

sites o f the osprey. 

Significant adverse impacts t o wetlands located on both the north and south 

shores of Lake Ponchartrain is very likely. We strongly disagree with the 

findings of this document concerni ng impacts to wetl ands. The method of 

construction will greatly determine the amount of direct and i ndirect impacts to 

these sensitive wetlands. 

Mr. Fred Dunham of my s taff has been assigned to this matter. He can be 

r~achPn At t h A Above address o r a t 225 .765.2 367 or dunham_ fo@wlf . state.la.us. 

Sincerely, 

Jr. 

fod 

c: FRA 

An Eq·Jal Oppon:unity Employer 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 11

Lonice C. Barrett. Commissioner 

Roben E. McCord 

Atlanta Regional Commission 

40 Courtland Street, N.E. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Georg ia Department of Natural Resources 

Historic Preservation Division 

W. Ray Luce. Division Director and Deputy St-0te Historic Pcesefvalion Officef 

500 The Healey Building, 57 Forsyth Street, N. W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Telephone (404) 656-2840 Fax (404) 657-1040 http://www.gashpo.org 

April 12, 2000 

re: Railroad: Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Project 

Fulton ct. al. counties, Georgia 

HP99J012-00 I 

Dear Mr. McCord: 

The Historic Preservation Division (HJ>D) has received a copy of the report entitled 

"Programmatic Environmental Assessment FRA-98-4545, Febrna1y 2QOO," prepared by the 

Atlanta Regional Commission for the U. S. Department ofTranspo11ation Federal Railroad 

Administration, with regard to the proposed Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev project. Our 

comments, as requested, are offered to assist the Federal Railroad Administration and the U. S. 

Depa1iment ofTranspo1iation in complying with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

We appreciate the efforts being made to identify historic resources within the project 

corridor and take them into account in the early stages of project planning. We generally concur 

with the repo1i's initial findings regarding the presence of historic resources in the project 

corridor. At this time, we have one specific comment regarding the characterization of the 

Friendship Church in the Atlanta University National Register Historic District. The report 

describes the church as having been "reconstrncted" and therefore is "no longer considered 

historic" (page 5-11 ! ). The National Register nomination form for this hist0ric district notes that 

the church, built in 187 I, was damaged by fire in 1943, the interior was rebuilt following the fire, 

but the exterior remains largely intact, although stuccoed after the fire and again more recently; 

the church is classified as a "contributing" historic building in the district. 

We also concur with the report's recommendations calling for intensive field surveys of 

historic resources (including buildings, structures, districts, and historic and archaeological sites) 

to identify all National Register-eligible as well as listed ltistoric properties within the project's 

area of potential etfe(;tS, should the project be selected for funding, in compliance with procedures 

set forth in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regu atio ~s 36 CfR 800 implementing 

Section 106 of the National Hist0ric Preservation Act. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 12

Letter to Robert E. McCord 

April l 2, 2000 

Page 2 

We look forward to working with the Atlanta Regional Commission and the Federal 

Railroad Administration to insure that historic properties are considered in this undenaking. If we 

may be of further assistance, please contact Serena·G. Bellew, Environmental Review Associate 

Planner, at 404-651-6624. Please refer to our project number HP99 l0 12-00I in any future 

communications regarding this project. 

Sincerely, 

Rjchard Cloues 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

cc: Jolene M. Molitoris, Federal Railroad Administration 

Wayne Shackelford, Georgia Department of Transportation 

Dan H. Latham, Coosa Valley RDC 

Kevin McAulift: No1th Georgia RDC 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 13

OFFICEOFPLANNINGANDBUDGET 

Willl.Uf I'd. TOMLINSON 

DXll6C"t011 

GEORGIA STATB CI.BARJNGHOUSB MEMORANDUM 

BXECUl1VB ORDER 12372 lUMBWPROCSSS 

TO: BcrYOdy ~ 

Atlc1ta Regional Commlasion 

40 ~Street, N.E. 

A'tlanla. GA 30303--

FKOM:. Georgia: S'biiiio CfoiWl8liOUIMI 

DATE: 4113/00 

. SUBJECT: Executive Order l23'n RfJViaw 

PROJECT: F.A: AtL..cblttanoop MA.Gt.EV Deploy_ Proj. 

STATBID: GA.000413003 

CFDA#: 

The sate 1~ re'\'iCJW oftbo abow rdaeo;od doc-.a~d bu bean. ~esed. AA a ~t of the 

~~ow proeess, tho dvi~ tbli docllllQtDt WU ]Xepcred 1br has bee fOUDd to be 

~with stale lllOCial, oconnmlc. ~ p1s, polieiot, plea. and popms with which 

tho Staie ls conocroed. 

AddttiODal Comment3: 

No~. 

ZC/cw 

Forni SC-4-EIS-4 

Januazy 1995 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 14

PARSONS 

PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC:. Barton~Aschman · De Lcuw, Cather· Steinman 

Two Landmark Center• 225 Eas1 Robinson Street, Suite 41 0 •Orlando. Flo·ida 32801 • (407) 316-8400 •Fax: (407) 316-8877 

April 1 7, 2000 

Mr. Fred Dunham 

State of Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 

Post Office Box 98000 

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 

Reference: Environmental Issues 

Gulf Coast Maglev Demonstration Project 

Dear Mr. Dunham: 

Your letter dated March 20, 2000 presenting the review comments of your technical 

staff concerning the Gulf Coast Magl ev Deployment Project Environmental 

Assessment, dated February 29, 2000 has been forwarded to my attention. This letter 

documents our understanding of the telephone conversation between Mr. William 

Barbel at CTE and yourself, on March 28, 2000 regarding the environmental issue 

areas and comments, either expressed or inferred, in your letter. 

The environmental assessment was prepared to provide general baseline data that will 

be used by the Federal Railroad Administraiion (FRA) in the preparation of a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (?EIS) which will compare and analyze 

the environmental issues. The EA was prepared as a screening tool for general 

alignments to allow for the selection of a preferred alternative course of action for 

deployment. The EA was not intended to contain detailed site-specific environmental 

:;tut.lit:!:; ur t.lt:!firtilivt:! fi11u i11y:; uf :;iynificance and effect. It was kept focused on the 

issues of the action and areas of potential or likely concern to present a reasonable 

consideration and disclosure of the environmenta issue areas. The EA as prepared will 

serve as a base document on which to build a more comprehensive statement of 

disclosure and prepare a detailed site specific Environmental Impact Statement. 

The EA did acknowledge the general geographical local nesting areas of the bald eagle 

without specifically pinpointing the actual nest locations. Identifying actual locations 

would have been unwise and irresponsible for the bald eagle or other protected and 

sensitive species nesting like the osprey. We concur that other likely sensitive issues 

were not identified in the broad generalized approach used. Such aspects as 

vegetation succession, various edge conditions and fragmentation of cover types and 

indigenous habitat issues will be accomplished with detailed biological surveys and 

analyses of an actual physically defined and preferred alignment. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 15

Page 2 

Mr. Fred Dunham 

April 17, 2000 

Wetland types and involvement issues were only generally described. The wetland 

specifics of their water regimes, supported biological communities and hydrophytic 

vegetation will also be accomplished with detailed biological surveys and analyses of an 

actual physically defined and preferred alignment. The consequences of wetland 

impact only went as far as providing the likelihood of the amount of wetland that would 

be permanently lost, disrupted or manipulated and the general functional value issues 

that may be of concern. We concur that some of the most important wetland issue 

areas will deal with method and length of construction. Not only are the direct 

construction effects on wetlands important but also the secondary and cumulative 

influences that may result over extended periods of time from construction activity. 

Here again the charge was more general magnitude and broadly defined importance to 

provide a reasonable consideration of the major environmental issue areas and concern 

involved that will be further scrutinized and disclosed in an EIS. 

Please contact Mr. Howard Newman if we can be of any assistance to you, or your staff 

specialists, in clarifying aspects of this project as proposed, or promulgating additional 

concerns and issues to the FRA that you feel need either disclosure or disposition in 

their forthcoming EIS. Mr. Newman can be reached at (407) 316-8400 (ext. 9007) or 

howa rd. newman@parsons.com. 

Very truly yours, 

PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP 

Eric C. H. MacDonald 

Project Manager 

c: David Valenstein, Federal Railroad Administration 

John C. Martin, Parson Transportation Group 

James D. Morinec, Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 16

tU) ...-: __ ~ 

U. S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Mr. Bruce Ahern 

MAY 0 1 2000 

228 W1:f~ Slrt•t.. R<>om 536 

Ham~~tlt'Q. PA 17101·1720 

In reply refer to: 

HOP- PA. 11 

Port Authority of Allegheny County 

2235 Beaver Aver.ue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 

Dear Mr. Ahern : 

On March 8, 2000 we received a copy of the Final Environmenta l ·. 

Assessment for the Pennsylvania Maglev Project. We understand the 

document has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the process i s underway· to select a city to proceed with 

a site specific Environment al Impact Statement (EIS). Based on 

our review of the document, we find that the corridor impacts 

could oe significant and substantial coordination with the FHWA, Pennsylvania Tur npike Commission, PennDOT, as well as the resource 

agencies will be absolutely critical to the success of this 

project. At this time, we only have one specific comment which 

relates to the air quality benefits of the proposed system. We 

believe the air quality benefits should be strongly emphasized 

especially since Pittsburgh is classified as a non- attainment 

Transportation Management Area (TMAJ . 

In the event Pittsburgh is selected, we hi gh ly suggest a multi 

agency " kick- off" meeting be held to deve).op a strategy for: 

implementation. The FHWA contact person will be Mr . Tony Mento, P.E. @ (717) 221-3412 . Thank you for the opportunity to review 

and comment on the well prepared document. 

Sincerely yours, 

P(/V'r<i1 w(/~ ~...James A. Cheatham I Division Administrator 

CCi ARNOLD KUPFERMAN; IRA 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 17

Commission Met11bers 

Ap5"!!lted by lhoe' 

Pmidfflt of lite Uru ~ SUMS 

Ha1'1e'f 8. Ga.•w. Chairman 

Rot!Etl A. GairitS 

M;119<1Y('t ('., V,ir.dt>rb)'t' 

Aopo1it('(i !;y lh(' W:'lyot of !lie 

Distri't ol Co!ut1\b1i1 

Amt~lort O;xo:i 

Or. Patt!tta Elwood 

.Secretary of Oefense 

Tht- Hot»,able William $. Cohen 

S«t('l<ltY ol ti"~ lnl('rior 

The llonor,ib!e Br\ICf' 8.1bbitt 

;\dm iniwa:or ol GE-tler.!I Sen·lces 

fht: HOflorable David J. 8aaa111 

Chairman, Commmce on 

Govunn~trtal Aiiairs 

Unitrd ta~~ S('fl<'tt' 

The Honorab!(' F'r('(J 11-.(llfl ~O'• 

Ch;i;m1,1n, Com!l'littt't ml 

G~rru11tut Reform 

U.S. Hoo~ of Res>rtSentaUves 

The HO<'lorab!e Oan 8unoo 

M3JO(, 01s1rkt oi Colllmbia 

Ile HOf'lO(ic!e Anlltony A. Willi~ 

Chaitmait, Count-ii of the 

District Cl CO!ul'llbi,,\ 

The H:.morJblt- Lhv.M VI. Cropp 

Executiwe Dhectot 

R~111ald W. Griffl11l 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

NCPC File No. MP96 

MAY 18 am 

Mr. Suhair Alkhatib 

Proj ect Manager 

Mass Transit Administration 

Maryland Department of Transportation 

William Donald Schaefer Tower 

6 Saint Paul Street 

Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1614 

Dear Mr. Alkhat.ib: 

801 P~Ms:;lvania /\venue, NW 

Suit(' 301 

Washington, OC 20574 

tel 202 462-7200 

i;i;x 202 482-7.272 

Thank you for the opportunity lo have my staff review the detai led information 

and publ ic forum discussion on the Maryland Mass Transit Administration's 

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Demonstration project at your meeting of Apri l 26, 

2000, in the District of Columbia. As descri.bed in that meeting, a portion of that 

project involves a Maglev guideway in the Washington National Capital Region 

w ith its southern terminus at Union Station. 

ln the presentation at the meeting, your agency noted that the Maglev system 

would extend 40± miles between Baltimore and Washington. D .C. with the 

potential for expansion along the northeast corridor to Boston and southeast 

corridor to Nonh Carolina. It was also idemified that locating portions of the 

Maglev guideway along segments of 1-95, rhe Baltimore-Washington Parkway, 

and the Amtrak and CSX Railroad rights-of-way is being considered. 

I want to take this opportunity w express the severe reservations the Commission 

staff has concerning the Baltimore-Washington Piu·kway alignment corridor. I 

also want lo express my deep concern that the Commission comment letter 

provided to yon on the Environmental Assessment was not included in that 

document or considered in its final development. At tile April 26 meeting, the 

National Park Service again voiced their significant concerns about the Maglcv 

project locating in the vicinity of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and clearly 

indicated it will oppose location of the project in that area. This historic resource 

and important cultural landscape would be adversely aflected by the proposal. 

XATIONAL CAP l lAI PLAN~I~(; CO .... l MISS!0"1 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 18

Mr. Suhair Alkhatib 

Page Two 

I want to emphasize the Commission staff belief that the federal parkway lands 

currently being considered as a possible alignment should not be viewed as a 

transportation corridor. Additionally, we believe that the Patuxtent Wildlife 

Research Center is a highly valuable federal wildlife reserve that demonstrates 

characteristics which this Commission would view as incompatible with the intent 

of a transportation corridor alignment unless closely coordinated with the U.S. 

Fish and Wild I ife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Service. All lands 

associated with Patuxent Research Refuge are managed with coordinmion 

between the refuge and research staffs so that the priority remains on research 

activities. 

In response to information presented at your meeting antl in the in formation 

appearing in the Environmental Assessment, I want to note the following 

additio1u1l concerns. 

T he Environment<il Assessment. does not present an adequate evaluation of 

electrical energy usage in the National Capital Region and Maryland involving 

che sources of electrical generation or the total cumulative impacts of the energy 

required for the Maglev operations. We recognize this is a deficiency that can be 

addressed in fuLUre env.ironmemal analysis, but the Com.rnission wishes assurance 

that this impact attribute will be fully addressed. 

The Commission requests a more detailed evaluation of all Elecrro-magnctic 

frequency (EM:F) impacts associated with this project. The Environmental 

Assessment essentially concludes there is no standard for hazardous effect of 

exposure and consequently restmes existing background information. The 

Commission staff rinds this approach unacceptable in the preparation of potential 

NEPA document informmion. The Environmental Assessment failed 10 expand 

on the important conclusion expressed in the one short paragraph cited in the 

Environmental Assessment recounting the EMF RAPID Program study of 1998, 

sponsored by National lnsticuce or Environmental Health Sciences, National 

Institutes of Health. In that study, minimizing exposure was an objective 

repeatedly stressed. The effort to minimize EMF exposure must be explored in 

the MTA's further evaluation of chi~ technology. Nowhere in the current 

environmental evaluation is that direction expressed or committed to. Moreover, 

the Commissiorn staff rinds that several of the references to EMF exposure levels 

in the Environmental Assessment are outdated or tindcrstatcd in the presented 

tables. 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 19

Mr. Suhair i\lkhatib 

Page Three 

Finally, the Commission staff is concerned about the estimated low ridership 

projections for this undertaking. As cus~ ed at the meeting. only 33,000 daily 

trips are projected when the transport system becomes ope rational. And altbougb 

the staff recognizes the importance of this effott as a technology demonstration 

project. it is a concern that signilicanL cultural and environmental resource areas 

in the National Capital Region would be impacted with a fac ility that has limited 

anticipated service Lo tbe public. Again this potential characteristic sharpens the 

focus that an appropriate a lignment must be de1e1m ined. 

With the objective in m[nd to fully inform the Cornm.ission of the continued 

planning of the Maglcv Project, I would like tO request that an information 

presentation be scheduled with the Commission staff about this 1rnnspo11ation 

effort in the Washington/Baltimore area. Please contact Mr. William Dowd. 

Director of the Office of Plans Review at (202)-482-7240 Lo identify a date for 

this informational meeting . 

We appreciate your consideration of our further comments at chis stage of the 

project planning. If you have tech nical questions concerning the information 

related in this letter, you may contact Mr. Eugene Keller, in the Office o f Plans 

Revie w. at (202) 482-725 1. 

.'f-' William R. Lawson, F/\fA 

( Acting t::xecutive Director 

cc: Mr. David Va lenstein 

Envixonmental Program Manager 

feden1l Ra.ilroad Admhnistration (RDV - lO) 

400 Seventh Street, SW (Mail Stop 20) 

Washington. D.C. 20590 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

K - 20

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

L - 1

APPENDIX L - METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

English to Metric

(approximate)

Metric to English

(approximate)

Area 1 Acre (ac) = 0.40469 Hectares (ha)

1 Square Mile (sq mi) = 2.58999 Square

Kilometers (sq km)

1 Hectares (ha) = 2.47105 Acre (ac)

1 Square Kilometer (sq km) = 0.38610 Square

Mile (sq mi)

Distance 1 Miles (mi) = 1.609344Kilometers (km)

1 Foot (ft) = 0.3048 Meters (m)

1 Inch (in) –2.54 Centimeters (cm)

1 Kilometers (km) – 0.62137 Miles (mi)

1 Meters (m) = 3.28084 Foot (ft)

1 Centimeters (cm) = 0.39370 Inch (in)

Weight 1 Pound (lb) = 0.45359 Kilograms (kg)

1 Pound (lb) = 0.00045 Metric Tonnes

1 Short Ton (0.8929 Long Ton) = 0.90718

Metric Tonnes

1 Long Ton (1.1200 Short Ton)= 1.0160

Metric Tonnes

1 Kilograms (kg) = 2.20662 Pound (lb)

1 Metric Tonnes = 2,204.62 Pound (lb)

1 Metric Tonnes = 0.98421 Long Ton

1 Metric Tonnes = 0.90718 Short Ton

Speed 1 Miles per Hour (mph) = 2.609344 Kilometers

per Hour (km/h)

1 Kilometers per Hour (km/h = 0.62137 Miles

per Hour (mph)

Volume 1 Gallon (gal) = 3.78541 Liters (L) 1 Liters (l) = 0.26417 Gallon (gal)

Temperature 1°

 Fahrenheit (F) = -17.22°Celsius (C)

[(x-32)(5/9)]  ̃F = y ̃ C

1°

 Celsius (C) = 33.8° Fahrenheit (F)

[(9/5) y + 32]  ̃C = x

 ̃ F

Power 1 Megawatt = 1000 Kilowatts (kW)

Energy 1 Joule = 0.000947 BTU (IT)

1 Joule = 0.00094845BTU (th)

1 Joule = .00094709 BTU (mean)

1 Megajoule = 0 1,000,000 Joules (j)

1 BTU (IT) = 1,055.056 Joules (j)

1 BTU (th) = 1,054.35 Joules (j)

1 BTU (mean) = 1,055.87 Joules (j)

EMF 1 Tesla (T) = 800,000,000 Amperes per Meter (A/m)

1 Gauss (G) = 80,000 /A/m

1 T = 10,000 G

1 Milli-tesla (mT) = 10 G

1 mT = 10,000 mG

0.10 uT = 0 1 mG

1 uT = 10 mG

100 uT = 1 G

1 nT = .010 mG

100 nT = 1 mG

Multiplication Factor Prefix Symbol

1,000,000,000 = 109 giga g

1,000,000 = 106 mega m

1,000 = 103 kilo k

100 = 102 hecto h

1=1

0.01 = 10-2 centi c

0.001 = 10-3 milli m

0.000001 =10-6 micro  ̃

0.00000001 = 10-9 nano n

0.0000000000 = 10-12 pico p
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

L - 2

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

M - 1

APPENDIX M – U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SLATER SELECTS

TWO HIGH SPEED MAGLEV PROJECTS [http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fra201.htm]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, January 18, 2001

Contact: Yvette Lester

Telephone: 202-493-6024

FRA 02-01

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Slater Selects Two High Speed Maglev Projects

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater today announced the selection of two projects

in Maryland and Pennsylvania to be advanced into the next phase of the competition to build and

demonstrate the first magnetically levitated (maglev) high-speed train system in revenue service

in the United States.

"It has been extremely difficult to select from all of the meritorious projects, but we must now

focus the remaining effort and funding on the Maryland and Pennsylvania projects, the ones best

positioned for early demonstration of Maglev’s promise," said Secretary Slater.

Citing the Clinton-Gore administration’s commitment to making high-speed rail a reality across

the nation, Secretary Slater also noted that today’s announcement follows on his October 18

announcement that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had approved high-speed service

for Amtrak’s Acela Express on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and an October 11 announcement

designating two new high-speed rail corridors in northern New England and the South Central

states.

A competition was initiated in May 1999, with the selection of seven projects to receive planning

funds and participate in a competition. After intensive planning and design efforts by the sponsors

of the seven participating projects, and evaluation of each project by multi-disciplined DOT staff,

the Secretary selected the two projects. In the next phase, each project team will refine its

estimates of ridership revenue and cost and its financial plan, strengthen the financial

commitments of its sponsors, and begin work on a site specific environmental assessment. $14

million will be available for these purposes. On the basis of the new information resulting from

these efforts, the Department of Transportation would then be in a position to select a single

project which would be eligible for a grant of $950 million in federal funding authorized for

construction under Section 1218 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),

and subject to appropriation by the Congress. The selected projects are:

Baltimore, Maryland to Washington DC: A 40-mile project linking Camden Yard in

Baltimore (a sports complex and center for recreation and tourism) and BaltimoreWashington International (BWI) Airport to Union Station in Washington, D.C. This

project has been under study since 1994. The project sponsors also see this as providing

rapid transportation between sports venues for winning a bid for the 2012 Olympics.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I Maglev Deployment Program

M - 2

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: A 47-mile project linking Pittsburgh Airport to Pittsburgh

and its eastern suburbs. The project has been under study since 1990 and is backed by a

coalition of state and local agencies, labor unions, and members of the Pittsburgh

community. Maglev Inc., the organization that would develop the project sees it as not

only a transportation system for commuters and air travelers, but also as a platform for

bringing precision steel fabrication technology used in construction of the guideway to

the Pittsburgh region.

The Secretary strongly encouraged the remainder of the projects, those in California, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada to continue to develop their plans and seek alternative sources of

financing. To assist them, each of these projects is slated to receive almost $1 million in federal

funds, as specified by Congress in the FY 2001 appropriation.

###

Briefing Room

[http://www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm]

Maglev Background Sheet

[http://www.dot.gov/affairs/maglevbg.htm]